RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01351
INDEX CODE: 100.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would
enable him to reenlist in the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since his discharge he has worked at several jobs where he has never
been late nor has he had any problems. He states that his previous
flaws are no longer an issue and he misses the feeling of
accomplishment being in the Air Force provided.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 August 2000. He
attained the rank of Airman (Amn/E2) with a date of rank of 22
February 2001. On 19 September 2001, the applicant failed his Career
Development Course (CDC) test that would have enabled him to progress
in his training level. On 19 December 2001, the applicant failed his
CDC retest. On 30 November 2001, the applicant received a letter of
reprimand (LOR) for intentionally misplacing an official document and
for falsifying official orders. Additionally, an Unfavorable
Information File (UIF) was established. He received a letter of
counseling (LOC) on 17 October 2001 for being late for duty. He
received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) on 18 October 2001, again for
being late for duty. On 30 January 2002, the applicant was given a
LOC that was placed in his existing UIF. On 2 April 2002 the
applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge in
accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Failure to
Progress in On-The-Job Training. The discharge was found legally
sufficient on 12 April 2002. The applicant exercised his right to
consult counsel and to submit statements on his behalf. He was
honorably discharged, without Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R), on
19 April 2002 after serving for 1 year, 7 months, and 29 days.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
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. 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 C.
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 D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
23 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. 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. The brief amount of time between
his discharge and his application, coupled with the fact that his
previous commander felt he was a poor candidate for Probation and
Rehabilitation (P&R), figured heavily in our decision. Consequently,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices
of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale expressed as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his
burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or
injustice. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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-
2003-01351 in Executive Session on 5 August 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 07 Apr 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 May 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 May 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03812
For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 9 February 2001. For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 14 February 2001. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we note that in the 11 months and 2 days that the applicant was on active duty, he received 2 LOCs, 4 LORs, and an Article 15.
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-01234
However, the recoupment of bonus monies is driven by the assigned SPD code. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. DFAS-POCC/DE recommends the applicant’s request to change his SPD code be denied. The applicant originally requested his RE code also be changed; however, AFPC/DPPRSP has administratively corrected his records to reflect he was issued RE code “1J.” Applicant’s contentions regarding the separation program designator (SPD) he was assigned at the time of his discharge are...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04111
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04111 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The “JCR” (Weight Control Failure) separation program designator (SPD) code he received be fixed or upgraded so he is not required to pay back the bonus he received when he enlisted in the Air Force. ...
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-2002-03926
On 16 January 1987, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending applicant for a discharge for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions and recommended a general discharge. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant’s requests his Reenlistment Eligibility code 2B “Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge” be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air Force Reserve. ...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to her discharge are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00392
On 14 January 2003, the applicant received an LOC for failure to obey an order or regulation. DPPAE states there is no evidence in the applicant’s record to support that the RE code she received is incorrect or that it created an injustice. Exhibit F. Letter of Recommendation, dated 3 May 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1996-02954-2
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and, the rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see Exhibit E. On 1 May 2003, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration, contending that his discharge was unfair and that he did not commit fraud against the government. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, the Board determined that there was...