RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00674
INDEX CODE: 110.00, 100.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow
eligibility to enlist in the Air Force or Army Reserves.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has matured since his prior enlistment. He has been a very
upstanding citizen and desires to be able to serve his country in
these times of turmoil.
In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form
214. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on
13 June 1985 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four
years. He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman (E-2),
with an effective date and date of rank of 13 December 1985.
On 8 December 1986, the applicant received notification that he was
being recommended for discharge due to minor disciplinary infractions.
The reasons for this action follow:
(a) On 2 February 1986, arrested on base for disorderly conduct
for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 18 February 1986.
(b) On 10 August 1986, received a Letter of Counseling (LOC)
for failure to call his duty section as directed.
(c) On 10 August 1986, received an LOC for a delinquent car
rental bill.
(d) On 4 August 1986, received an LOC for leaving his toolbox
and all CTK items unsecured.
(e) On 17 March 1986, received an LOC for failure to wear the
proper uniform at a military formation and for failure to report to
work afterwards.
(f) On 29 August 1986, applicant was notified of his
commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for
dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Applicant
elected nonjudicial punishment under Article 15. The applicant
consulted a lawyer, waived his right to demand trial by court-martial
and accepted nonjudicial punishment. After considering all matters
presented to him, the commander found that the applicant did commit
one or more of the offenses alleged. The commander imposed punishment
of a suspended reduction to the grade of airman basic until 9 March
1987. Applicant did not appeal the punishment.
On 8 December 1986, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification letter. On 9 December 1986, he was interviewed and
counseled concerning his rights by the Area Defense Counsel. The
applicant declined to submit any written statements in his behalf.
The Staff Judge Advocate indicated that the applicant’s service did
not appear to warrant an honorable discharge. On 22 December 1986,
the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and
directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge.
The applicant received a general discharge on 12 January 1987 under
the provisions of AFR 39-10 (misconduct - pattern of minor
disciplinary infractions). He had completed a total of 1 year, and 7
months and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of
discharge. He received an RE Code of 2C, which defined means
“Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level
separation without characterization of service."
On 18 December 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)
approved applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to
honorable; however, his request for a change of RE code was denied. A
copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS states that, based upon the documentation in the file,
they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The discharge
was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Since the
applicant’s discharge was upgraded by the AFDRB and he did not
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge
processing, DPPRS defers to HQ AFPC/DPPAES for any change in his RE
code. The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
HQ AFPC/DPPAE states that the applicant’s RE Code of 2C is correct.
The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on
30 May 2003 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant did not provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file
was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his
commanders abused their discretionary authority. The RE code which
was issued at the time of applicant’s separation accurately reflects
the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be
in error or unjust. We note that the applicant has provided no
evidence pertaining to his post-service activities. Should he provide
evidence to substantiate that he has maintained the standards of good
citizenship in the community since his discharge, the Board may be
willing to reconsider his request for the purpose of clemency. In the
absence of such evidence or showing that the information in the
discharge case file is erroneous or that his commanders abused their
discretionary authority, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 31 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00674.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 18 Dec 87.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Apr 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 May 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Acting Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01122
On 22 October 2002, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to report for mandatory weekend remedial training. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE indicated that the reenlistment code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” was properly accessed to the applicant’s record as he was discharged in accordance with Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01489
In support of his application, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of his military personnel records, a letter from the applicant’s father to the basic training commander, and a statement from the applicant’s recruiter. DPPRS states that by signing the “Statement of Understanding of Sickle-Cell Trait and Discharge Options” the applicant acknowledged the Air Force’s policy on sickle cell trait and understood, if he elected to separate, he would not be allowed back into the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00910
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03143
He was discharged on 18 September 2002 with an entry-level separation, as he had not completed his first term of service. ____________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this case and recommended the narrative reason for discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority but that otherwise no change to the applicant’s RE code was warranted. BRENDA L. ROMINE Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01037
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that airmen are given entry- level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that the applicant's discharge and the reenlistment code he received...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01852
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends that the applicant’s separation code and narrative reason for separation (DD Form 214, Blocks 26 & 28) be changed to “KFF—Secretarial Authority” (see Exhibit C). Therefore, we recommend that the narrative reason for his separation and corresponding separation code be changed to reflect “Secretarial Authority.” 4. BRENDA L. ROMINE Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2003-01852 MEMORANDUM FOR...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01386
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01386 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to enlist in the Army. The basis for this action was that the mental health recommendation to the applicant’s commander stated “While [the applicant’s] Adjustment...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01317
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01317 INDEX CODES: 100.06, 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reason for discharge and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow her to reenter the Air Force. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPAE indicated that the applicant’s RE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00438
The following information was obtained from the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record. On 17 Nov 00, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for a change to the reason and authority for the discharge. After careful review of the available records and the information contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board Hearing Record, the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00756
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that since there is no documentation in his records relating to his request for separation, they cannot provide an advisory concerning the circumstances leading to his release from active duty. As to the applicant’s separation code, it appears that the code, which is directly related to the reason for his separation, is, in fact, correct. The record indicates that the applicant was...