RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02771
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The RE code on his discharge papers is unjust or in error. He does
not believe his punishment was fitting to his offense and he deserves
a second chance.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 June 2000.
On 4 December 2000, the commander notified the applicant that he was
recommending a discharge for a pattern of minor disciplinary
infractions and recommended a general discharge. Bases for the action
were: Letter of Reprimand (LOR), 8 November 2000 and 5 October 2000,
for underage consumption of alcohol; LOR, 3 November 2000, for using
smokeless tobacco; LOR, 25 October 2000, for failure to go to
appointed duty; and LOR, 25 October 2000, for failing to keep
dormitory room in inspection order and lying to an noncommissioned
officer. He received an Article 15 on 14 November 2000 for disorderly
conduct, and Record of Individual Counseling (ROC), 29 September 2000,
for failure to go to appointed place of duty on time and 31 August
2000, for failure to keep dormitory room in inspection order.
Applicant waived his right to legal counsel and declined to submit
statements to his commander. The base legal services reviewed the
discharge package and found it legally sufficient to support the
discharge. Because efforts to improve his performance met with
negative results, his commander did not recommend probation and
rehabilitation (P&R). The Discharge Authority approved the separation
on 12 December 2000 and ordered a general discharge without P&R.
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman first class, was
discharged from the Air Force on 18 December 2000 under the provisions
of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (Misconduct -
Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions), with an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge. He served six months and twelve days
of total active service. He was assigned a reenlistment eligibility
(RE) code of 2B (Separated with a general or under-other-than-
honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 7 November 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and response 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim
of an error or injustice. At the time members are separated from the
Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality
of their service and circumstances of their separation. After a
thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code
issued was in accordance with the appropriate directives. Therefore,
we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 in
Executive Session on 17 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Sep 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Nov 03.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02795
The reason for this action was that on 1 and 6 December 2001 he failed to refrain from providing alcohol for a person under age 21, and received an Article 15 with a $375 forfeiture of pay. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | bc-2003-02406
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Although the RE code assigned at the time of her separation was accurate, we believe the applicant should be provided the opportunity to apply for enlistment in the armed services. DAVID C. VAN GASBECK Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2003-02406 INDEX CODE: 112.00 MEMORANDUM...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01907
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-00327
When the applicant was discharged he received an RE code of “2B” which indicated the applicant was involuntarily separated with a general or UOTHC discharge. The AFDRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge and determined the discharge should be upgraded based on the applicant’s overall quality of service, however, the discharge upgrade still fell under the purview of the RE code “2B”. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02432
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02432 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be changed to honorable. He was evaluated on 13 August 1975 whereupon the evaluating officer recommended the applicant be discharged immediately and that he be furnished a general...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01925
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 June 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years. On 8 May 2002, the applicant received an LOC for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, resulting in vacation of his Article 15 Nonjudicial Punishment, reducing him to the grade of airman, with a new date of rank of 27 November 2001. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01780
On 31 October 1997, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for missing physical training formation. On 11 December 1997, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02770
On 2 Jul 98, applicant requested a hardship discharge based on family difficulties. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. Additionally, we note the assigned RE code of 4A is a code that can be waived for prior service enlistment consideration, provided applicant meets all other requirements for enlistment under an existing prior service program, and depending on...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02213
The applicant, while serving in the grade of Airman First Class, was separated from the Air Force under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) on 27 May 1977. His SPD reveals separation under the provisions of AFR 39-12, Section F, Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Courts-Martial. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01799
DPPRS concludes the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and did not provide any facts warranting a change to his reenlistment eligibility code. DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a personal statement dated 25 July 2005, the applicant reiterates his reasons for wanting to enter active duty service. At...