Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02214
Original file (BC-2003-02214.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                           7RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02214

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable, his separation code be changed,  and
his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow his  reenlistment
into the armed forces.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge should not  have  occurred  since  the  Letters  of  Reprimand
(LORs) he received during his enlistment lacked creditability.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a copy of a  statement  from
a former acting supervisor.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 19 May
2000.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class.

On 11 April 2002, he received notification that  he  was  being  recommended
for  discharge  for  misconduct,  specifically,  a  pattern  of   misconduct
prejudicial to good order and discipline (i.e., failed to  attend  scheduled
appointments, extremely disrespectful to  an  Army  Noncommissioned  Officer
(NCO), assaulted his spouse, disrespectful to a Senior NCO when he  muttered
an obscenity in his  presence,  violated  a  directed  order  to  remain  in
temporary lodging for  10  days,  arrested  by  ---  County  Police  for  an
altercation with a civilian, and failed to complete Volume 2 of  his  Career
Development Course (CDC), as evidenced by 6 Letters of Reprimand (LORs)  and
3 Letters of Individual Counseling (LOCs).  He received a general  discharge
on 29 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  He  had
completed a total of 1 year, 11 months and 11 days  of  active  service  and
was serving in the grade  of  airman  first  class  (E-3)  at  the  time  of
discharge.  He received an RE Code of “2B”, which defined  means  "Separated
with a general or under other than honorable conditions."

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.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

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 has  provided  no  facts  warranting  an
upgrade of his discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states, in part, that  the  RE  code  of  “2B”  assigned  to  the
applicant is correct.  The applicant was discharged due to  his  history  of
substandard behavior.

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.  He is currently employed with the Texas Department  of  Criminal
Justice and will not be able to obtain a better job unless his discharge  is
upgraded.  He learned a lot while in the Air Force and since his  discharge,
things have been a lot harder for he and his family.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of record and  noting  the  applicant’s  complete  submission,  we  find  no
evidence of  error  or  injustice.   In  this  respect,  we  note  that  the
applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance  with  the  governing  Air
Force Instruction in effect at  the  time  of  his  separation  and  he  was
afforded all the rights to which entitled.  He has provided no  evidence  to
indicate that his separation was  inappropriate.  There  being  insufficient
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought.

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-2003-02214
in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                       Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Sep 03, w/atch.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01765

    Original file (BC-2003-01765.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01765 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow his enlistment into the armed forces. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01907

    Original file (BC-2003-01907.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge on 21 August 2002. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 July 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03103

    Original file (BC-2002-03103.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2002-03103.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00392

    Original file (BC-2007-00392.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01753

    Original file (BC-2003-01753.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00912

    Original file (BC-2003-00912.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00912 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2B, “Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge,” be changed. For these actions, she received an LOR, which was placed in her existing UIF. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02375

    Original file (BC-2003-02375.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02310

    Original file (BC-2007-02310.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2003-01231

    Original file (BC-2003-01231.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. He recommended a general discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was...