RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00624
INDEX CODE: 100.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would
allow enlistment into the Air Force Reserve (AFRES).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was trying to find a way to get out of the service to spend time
with his grandfather and mother after his grandmother died. They were
a very close family and he felt like his grandfather and mother needed
him to be home. He spoke with his supervisor and eventually his First
Sergeant. The First Sergeant recommended that he fail his Career
Development Course (CDC) tests as the fastest way to get out of the
service. The First Sergeant assured the applicant that he would be
honorably discharged.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has submitted a personal
statement.
His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 October 1992.
He attained the grade of Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with a date of
rank (DOR) of 20 February 1994. On 10 August 1994, the applicant
received a letter of reprimand (LOR) as punishment for failing a CDC
test, refusing to retake the test, and then when ordered to retake the
test, failing the retest. The applicant was notified on 12 August
1994 that he was being recommended for discharge under the auspices of
Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure
to Progress in Training. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the
discharge notification and consulted counsel but waived his right to
submit statements. On 22 August 1994, the recommendation was found
legally sufficient for honorable discharge and no probation &
rehabilitation (P&R). Applicant was discharged effective 29 August
1994, as an A1C after serving 1 year, 10 months, and 10 days.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE has reviewed this case and verified that the RE code of 2C,
“Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level
separation without characterization of service” is correct.
DPPAE’s evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this case and recommended denial. DPPRS states
that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretionary
powers of the discharge authority. They note the DRB’s denial, in
December 1997, of the application and that the request is not timely.
No new evidence or any identification of error or injustice has been
presented to warrant a change to the discharge.
DPPRS’s complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
30 May 2003 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case to
include his statements concerning the reasons he was involuntarily
separated. Regardless of the reasons for his failure to complete the
training, other than his own statement, the applicant has provided no
evidence to show his discharge and the corresponding RE code he
received were erroneous or unjust. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00624 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
Ms. Sharon Seymour, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 May 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 May 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
PATRICIA D. VESTAL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00251
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He hurt his leg during his first year of service and during the next 3 years of rehabilitation he was bounced around from commander to commander thereby hindering any opportunity to complete his initial training. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this case file and recommended denial. Exhibit D. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00446
The discharge authority approved the request for discharge (in lieu of court- martial) and ordered a UOTHC discharge on 22 August 1984. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. After careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication that the actions taken to effect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that the actions...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00959
The person told him that he would be able to reenlist as his discharge was a General discharge. On 26 June 2002, applicant was notified that he was being discharged under the auspices of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, for unsatisfactory duty performance and minor disciplinary infractions. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions of an increase in maturity, in and of itself, sufficiently...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00575
Psychological testing reported to be consistent with personality disorder. The BCMR Medical Consultant agrees that there is an absence of evidence to support a diagnosis of personality disorder beyond the results of the psychological testing and mental health interview in Apr 95. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01351
He received a letter of counseling (LOC) on 17 October 2001 for being late for duty. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his contention of no longer being affected by “previous flaws”, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01890
We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 9 Jul 03. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02903
He received an RE code of 2C, which defined means “Involuntary separation with honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant found that no change to applicant’s record was warranted. AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPAE verified that the RE code of 2C was correct. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01768
At the time she was released, she took her end of course exams twice and failed both times due to working 12 hour days and suffering a miscarriage. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03000
She served 2 years, 2 months and 13 days of active service. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. However, after reviewing the applicant’s records, the Board believes the narrative reason for separation and her current RE code are somewhat harsh.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00455
Toward the end of basic training, he received orders. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant separated on 9 June 1994, after serving 3 months and 29 days active service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 9 June 1994, he was separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10...