Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03558
Original file (BC-2002-03558.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03558
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXX                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  be  changed  from  4H   (serving
suspended punishment to Article 15) to 1J (eligible to reenlist but  elected
to separate).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She wishes to continue her military career in the Air National  Guard.   She
has exhausted all available and effective  administrative  remedies  to  her
request.  She fulfilled her punishment when she separated from  active  duty
on 2 September 2002.  Since she left active duty  prior  to  her  punishment
suspension of 4 December 2002, a 4H reentry code  no  longer  applies.   She
has had an extremely successful career and it is her desire to  continue  to
serve as a member of the National Guard.  The leave fraud incident does  not
represent her; it only represents an error in her judgment.

In support of her application, the applicant provides  a  military  timeline
of  events/resume,  her  last  eight  performance  reports,  her   Wisconsin
Department of Public  Instruction  license,  and  numerous  certificates  of
appreciation,  recognition  and  achievements.   The  applicant’s   complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 June 1993, the applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  for  a
period of four years.  She was progressively promoted to the rank  of  staff
sergeant (E-5) effective 1  April  1999.   She  received  eight  performance
reports, all with a promotion recommendation of five, for the period 3  June
1993 through 1 February 2002.

On 2 June 2002, the applicant received punishment  under  Article  15,  UCMJ
for  leave  fraud.   As  punishment,  the  applicant  received  a  suspended
reduction in grade to senior airman, until  4  December  2002,  after  which
time it would be remitted without further  action,  unless  sooner  vacated;
forfeiture of $270 pay; and a reprimand.  The applicant chose not to  appeal
the punishment.

On 2 September 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade  of
SSgt because of completion of regular active service.  She had  served  nine
years and three months on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.   DPPAE  stated  the  applicant  received  the
correct RE  Code  upon  her  separation  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2606,
Reenlistment in the United States Air Force.  The applicant separated  while
serving the suspended portion of her Article 15 punishment;  therefore,  her
RE Code should not be changed.  The DPPAE 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  14
February 2003 for review and response (Exhibit D).  As of this date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  It appears that  the  applicant’s
RE code was properly assigned based on her circumstances at the time of  her
separation.  While it is true that she served honorably  and  well  for  the
majority of her career, her RE code had its basis in the fact that  she  was
undergoing suspended punishment under Article  15,  for  the  commission  of
offense punishable under the UCMJ.  The  applicant  separated  three  months
before the suspension was due to be remitted.  The  applicant  has  provided
no evidence showing her commander abused his  discretionary  authority  when
he determined she  had  committed  the  offense  for  which  punishment  was
imposed, that her rights were violated, or that the  RE  code  she  received
was contrary to the provisions of the governing Air Force  instruction.   We
note that the applicant’s RE code is  one  that  may  be  waived.   However,
whether or not a waiver would be approved would be based  on  the  needs  of
the service to which she applies.  Accordingly, in view  of  all  the  above
and in the absence of persuasive evidence which would  lead  us  to  believe
the applicant was the victim of an error or injustice, her  request  is  not
favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 14 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2002-03558
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 02, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Feb 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.




                                  BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02680

    Original file (BC-2003-02680.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-02680 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) and her rank be reinstated to airman (E-3) or senior airman (E- 4). _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102083

    Original file (0102083.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02083 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H be changed to 1J, which defined means “Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation.” RE Code 4H is defined as “Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military...

  • 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-2003-00910

    Original file (BC-2003-00910.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02855

    Original file (BC-2003-02855.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    If the Board cannot pardon him or chooses not to do so, he requests that his FBI record be corrected to reflect that he was only arrested once, not twice as his record reflects. On 6 Oct 00, the applicant requested a waiver of his “4F” RE code to allow him to reenlist in the Air Force. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code.

  • 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 | 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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02705

    Original file (BC-2005-02705.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02705 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 Jun 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H (Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) be changed so that he may enlist in the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02857

    Original file (BC-2002-02857.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02857 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment code (RE) be changed to allow her to join the Air Force Reserve. The applicant’s commander notified her on 6 July 1989, that he was not recommending her for promotion because she received an Article...

  • 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...