RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00768
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be adjusted so that he
may reenlist in the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He excelled during the first part of his career in basic training and
technical school; however, following his medical problems with asthma,
several Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) within his command became obsessed
with forcing him out of the Air Force.
The applicant states that he never wanted to leave the military, but he did
need to be at a better base. He knows that he can do better with a second
chance.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits his personal statement, a
letter of appreciation from the Base Blood Drive Project Officer, and a
Memorandum for Record from an individual who was in charge of the
applicant’s detail.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 June 1999 for a
period of four years.
During Basic Military Training (BMT), he was presented for medical
evaluation on 19 August 1999, with nasal and chest congestion and shortness
of breath. He was diagnosed with upper respiratory infection with reactive
airway disease and treated with a nebulizer.
During Technical Training School, he was presented for medical evaluation
on 30 September 1999, after performing some low crawls in a dusty
environment. His audible expiratory wheezes cleared with a nebulizer
treatment. He was diagnosed with allergic rhinitis and treated with a
profile and Deconamine. He was seen in the emergency room later that night
complaining of dryness from the Deconamine, which made it difficult for him
to breathe. He was referred for pulmonary consultation, at which time he
was diagnosed with pre-existing asthma, dating back to childhood when he
had problems with cats, which had been unmasked by recent events.
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 9 March 2000, for the purpose
of determining whether he should be continued on active duty. Based on the
diagnosis of asthma, the MEB recommended he be referred to an Informal
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).
An IPEB convened on 22 March 2000, and based on the diagnoses of asthma,
VASRD 6602, recommended he be discharged with 10% severance pay. The IPEB
also noted his tobacco abuse, which they found to be not unfitting,
compensable, or ratable. He agreed with the findings and recommendations
of the IPEB on 24 March 2000.
The commander notified him on 17 April 2000, that he was recommending his
administrative discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph
5.49, for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions. The commander
indicated the following reasons for the action:
a. On 4 December 1999, an investigation revealed that he had
willfully consumed alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21, for which
he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 15 February 2000.
b. On 1 February 2000, he failed to report to his appointed place
of duty on time, for which he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated
1 February 2000.
c. On 16 February 2000, it was reported that he made derogatory
comments against another flight, for which he received an LOC, dated 17
February 2000.
d. It was brought to the attention of his supervisor that he
failed to report to work on time for the third time in 30 days, for which
he received an LOR, dated 2 March 2000.
e. On 5 March 2000, he failed to report to his appointed place of
duty, for which he received an Article 15, dated 14 March 2000.
f. On 14 March 2000, he disobeyed a lawful order when he failed to
wear his proper rank on his uniform, for which he received an LOR, dated 17
March 2000.
After consulting with military counsel, he submitted statements in his
behalf, and requested to be given the opportunity for probation and
rehabilitation. He also requested that his administrative discharge be
dual-processed in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 6.30, due to his
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).
His administrative discharge and disability case were forwarded to the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for dual processing.
The SAFPC determined his medical condition did not contribute to, or
aggravate, his misconduct and the seriousness of his misconduct outweighed
the gravity of his medical condition. On 25 May 2000, the SAFPC directed
discharge by execution of the involuntary discharge action and terminated
the disability processing action.
On 8 June 2000, he was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Minor
Disciplinary Infractions) and received a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge. He was assigned an RE code of “2B” (Involuntarily
separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions
discharge).” He completed 10 months and 26 days of active service.
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his
request for an upgrade of his discharge on 7 September 2000, with a
rehearing on 20 December 2000, with no change in the discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPPAE states, in part, that the RE Code of “2B” accurately identifies
the applicant’s involuntary separation with a general discharge.
The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation, and within the discretion of the
discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any new evidence or
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge
processing. In addition, he provided no other facts warranting an upgrade
of the discharge.
The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 30 May 2003 for review and response within 30 days. However,
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 an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record, and given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s
separation, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded or
that a change to his RE code is warranted. He has not established that the
commander abused his discretionary authority in initiating discharge action
against him. In regard to his request for a change in his RE code, we note
that the RE code issued at the time of separation was in compliance with
the appropriate directives. In view of the above finding, we agree with
the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rational
expressed as the basis for our decision. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting
the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing 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 Docket Number BC-2003-00768
in Executive Session on 17 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
Ms. Patricia Kelly, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 May 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Mar 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00972
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00972 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded to allow his enlistment in the Armed Forces. In support of the appeal, the applicant submits letters of recommendation. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02375
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02375 INDEX CODE: 100.3, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. On 15 March 1996, the applicant was notified by his commander he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02214
On 22 May 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and his RE Code and reason and authority for discharge be changed. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: He will always have a mark against him as long as his records remain unchanged. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02752
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the member’s request to change his Re Code on 4 October 2002. The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his review of the Air Force evaluations, the applicant chose not to address the statements made in the evaluations;...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02310
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02310 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 18 January 2000, he received an LOR for failing to report to work on time. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01753
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01753 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected by changing the description of his misconduct from “a user or abuser of illegal drugs” to “a conspirator in the purchase/sale/use of an illegal drug.” His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02370
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02370 INDEX CODE: 110.02 xxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of “2B” (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge) and Separation Code of “JFF” (Secretarial Authority) be changed. On 10 August 1999,...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03103
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03103
The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. ...
In his 13 years of service, he never received an Article 15 or any such reprimands. The application was timely filed. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 3 Apr 01, w/atch.