RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01231
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The RE code of 2B reflected on his DD Form 214 was given unjustly.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement and a
copy of his DD Form 214. Applicant's complete submission, with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 May 1989 for a
period of 4 years.
On 4 September 1990, the commander notified the applicant that he was
recommending a discharge for a pattern of minor disciplinary
infractions. He recommended a general discharge. Basis for the
action was an Article 15, dated 1 August 1990, for writing two checks
to the Base Exchange (BX) with insufficient funds; and a Letter of
Reprimand (LOR) and placement on the control roster for failure to pay
said debts on 2, 16 and 30 June 1990. His commander counseled him
because in February 1990 he wrote 14 bad checks to the BX. He had
numerous incidents of financial mismanagement, all well documented in
his records. Additionally, in October 1989, he received a LOR for
under-aged drinking. He consulted military legal counsel but declined
to submit statements in his behalf. The base legal services reviewed
the discharge package and found it legally sufficient to support the
discharge. Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were not recommended.
The Discharge Authority approved the separation and ordered a general
discharge without P&R.
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was
discharged from the Air Force on 26 September 1990 under the
provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary
Infractions) with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
He served one year, four months and ten days of total active service.
He was assigned an RE code of 2B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation. Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of
the discharge authority. Therefore, they recommend denial of the
applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPAE states that the assignment of the reenlistment eligibility
(RE) code of 2B “Involuntarily separated with a general or under other
than honorable conditions discharge” is correct.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 19 June 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days. 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 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;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We do
note that if documentation is provided regarding his post-service
activities, in particular, showing that he has become a responsible
citizen and has consistently demonstrated the ability to pay his
debts, his request can be reconsidered. In the absence of such
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 this application, BC-
2003-01231, in Executive Session on 31 July 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 May 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 Jun 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00674
(b) On 10 August 1986, received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to call his duty section as directed. 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. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01673
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01673 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge proceedings. ...
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-2002-01836
JA recommends that no changes be made to the applicant’s record. AFOATS/JA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Regarding the “bounced” checks, the applicant states that he did not reveal them in his application to Officer Training School (OTS) because he did not know that that part of his financial history was an issue.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03603
On 2 Nov 95, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend discharge for a pattern of misconduct. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03331
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03331 INDEX CODE: 100.00; 100.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Information reflected on her separation document relating her Home of Record (HOR) and Nearest Relative be corrected. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPAE...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03592
On 28 December 1990, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 35-10, Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, with an honorable discharge. On 28 December 1990 the applicant submitted a conditional waiver to an administrative review board contingent on receiving no less than an honorable discharge. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree...
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...