Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03359
Original file (BC-2002-03359.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03359
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  be  changed  from  “4H”,  serving
suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15,  Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ), to one that would allow his reentry into the Air Force.

His rank be restored.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The punishment he received under Article 15 was suspended,  so  his  rank
and RE code should be upgraded.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 3 Mar 93.  On 13 Dec 93, while
in the grade of airman, the applicant  was  punished  under  Article  15,
UCMJ, by his squadron commander for providing an alcoholic beverage to  a
person under 21 years of age in violation of local state law.  Punishment
consisted of forfeiture of $100.00 pay and 7 days extra duty.  On 21  Dec
93, he was again punished under  Article  15  for  drunk  and  disorderly
conduct.  Punishment consisted of a  six  month  suspended  reduction  to
airman basic, forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month  for  two  months.   The
applicant, while in the  grade  of  senior  airman,  was  punished  under
Article 15 on 28 Dec 00 for driving while drunk.  Punishment consisted of
reduction to the grade of airman first class, forfeiture of  $667.00  pay
per month for two months suspended for six months,  restriction  to  base
and restriction from all facilities that serve alcohol for 20  days,  and
20 days extra duty.  The applicant was discharged from the Air  Force  on
30 Jan 01 after completion of required service.  He was issued an RE code
of “4H.”

A resume of his enlisted performance reports (EPRs) follows:

      Closeout Date                          Overall Rating

        2 Nov 94                             5
       15 Nov 95                             4
       15 Nov 96                             5
       15 Nov 97                             5
       15 Nov 98                             5
       15 Nov 99                             4

______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The RE code  of
“4H” is correct as applicant was serving Article  15  punishment  at  the
time of discharge.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation  and  indicated  that  he
believes it would be an unjust ruling to deny  his  request.   He  states
that although he was punished under Article 15 for  operating  a  vehicle
while drunk, there was no Breathalyzer or blood sample taken.  He  claims
that the only reason he  accepted  the  punishment  was  because  he  was
supposed to start a new career and could not be delayed.  He states  that
since the punishment was suspended and he  was  separating,  he  was  not
given the opportunity to fulfill  the  punishment  and  move  on  in  his
military career.  He asks the Board to change his RE code and  allow  him
to serve in the Air Force Reserves during the country’s time of need.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant
contends that he only accepted punishment under Article 15 because he was
due to start a new career and could not be delayed.  Notwithstanding this
argument, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that
the action was  not  warranted  or  that  the  commander’s  actions  were
arbitrary or capricious.  The Board also notes that only  the  forfeiture
of pay was suspended and that  the  applicant  was  actually  reduced  in
grade, negating his argument that his rank should be restored because his
punishment was suspended.  The Board does not find any violation  of  Air
Force policy or procedure in the applicant’s case and agrees with the Air
Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant’s  Reenlistment
Eligibility code of “4H’ is correct.  Therefore, we  find  no  compelling
basis to grant the relief requested.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice; that  the  application  was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will  only
be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence
not considered with this application.

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number  02-03359  in
Executive Session on 6 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Jan 03.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02376

    Original file (BC-2002-02376.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02376 INDEX CODES: 100.06, 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 initiated on 6 Apr 98 and imposed on 23 Apr 98 be set aside and removed from his records. He asked four times about his rights regarding the base and state driving laws. Therefore,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04112

    Original file (BC-2002-04112.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04112 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H be changed to allow eligibility to enlist in the Air National Guard. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). Sufficient relevant evidence has...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02576

    Original file (BC-2002-02576.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02576 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H be changed. Applicant was honorably discharged on 30 Nov 98 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Hardship) and assigned an RE code of 4H (Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02327

    Original file (BC-2002-02327.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His sentence was reduced to reduction to the grade of airman (E-2), three months confinement, and forfeiture of $400.00 per month for three months. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02874

    Original file (BC-2001-02874.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 Mar 00, his commander determined that he committed one or more of the offense alleged and imposed punishment that consisted of reduction to the grade of airman first class with a date of rank and effective date of 9 Mar 00, and, reduction to the grade or airman. DPPAE states that the RE code assigned at the time of his discharge was correct and he has not satisfactorily indicated that the RE code was inappropriate or not in compliance with Air Force policy. We find no evidence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03558

    Original file (BC-2002-03558.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    She received eight performance reports, all with a promotion recommendation of five, for the period 3 June 1993 through 1 February 2002. The applicant separated while serving the suspended portion of her Article 15 punishment; therefore, her RE Code should not be changed. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 14 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms. Brenda L....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201047

    Original file (0201047.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states the RE code the applicant received is the appropriate code for those members separated "involuntarily with an honorable discharge or an entry level separation without characterization of service (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 24 May 2002, for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2005-00316

    Original file (BC-2005-00316.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00316 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 JUL 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reenlistment eligibility (RE) code reflected on his DD Form 214 be changed from “4H” to “1J.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00523

    Original file (BC-2002-00523.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00523 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to an eligible code. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00882

    Original file (BC-2002-00882.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00882 INDEX CODE: 126.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Article 15 be set aside so that her discharge can be upgraded so that she may qualify for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits. The service member may then consult with a defense counsel to determine whether to accept nonjudicial...