RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02923
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She thought that she made the right decision when she was discharged but
now regrets that decision.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 June 1992. On 14
September 1993, she was notified by her commander that she was being
recommended for discharge due to failure in alcohol abuse rehabilitation.
The reason for this action was that on 7 November 1992, she was
disrespectful and provoking in speech toward a noncommissioned officer and
received a letter of reprimand (LOR). On 22 May 1993, investigation
disclosed that she assaulted and harassed another Air Force member by
striking, scratching and using provoking speech. For this conduct she
received a LOR. On 25 May 1993, due to being involved in several incidents
in which alcohol was a factor, she was referred to social actions for an
alcohol evaluation. During that evaluation, it was determined that she had
an alcohol problem; however, she denied that fact and refused to
participate in a treatment program. In a legal review of the case file,
the base legal office found the case legally sufficient to support
discharge. The discharge authority approved the separation and ordered an
honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 7 October
1993, she was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (alcohol
rehabilitation failure) with an honorable discharge. She received a RE
code of 2H, Participating in Track 4 or 5 of the Substance Abuse
Reorientation and Treatment (SART) program for alcohol, or has failed to
complete Track 4. She served 1 year 3 months and 19 days on active duty.
Applicant does not contest the accuracy of the RE code and after reviewing
the applicable instruction, AFI 36-2606, it appears the RE code issued is
accurate.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. The applicant did not submit any new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge process. Additionally, she provided no facts warranting a change
in her discharge.
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states that getting out of the Air Force was one of the biggest
mistakes she has made. There were many reasons why she failed to attend
alcohol abuse rehabilitation and she felt it was the right decision at the
time.
A copy of the applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; 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 Docket Number BC-2003-02923
in Executive Session on 10 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 3 Oct 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Dec 03.
Thomas S. Markiewicz
Chair
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01211
The initial DD Form 214 issued in conjunction with the applicant’s 15 Jul 91 separation reflected the narrative reason for separation as “Return from overseas within 30 days of expiration term of service,” with separation code “K14,” and RE Code 4D (Grade is senior airman and member has completed at least nine years of total active service and had not yet been selected for staff sergeant). At the time a member is separated from the Air Force, he/she is furnished an RE code predicated upon...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00438
The following information was obtained from the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record. On 17 Nov 00, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for a change to the reason and authority for the discharge. After careful review of the available records and the information contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board Hearing Record, the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00912
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01765
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-2003-00364
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00364 INDEX CODE: A69.03, A93.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his benefits under the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) be restored. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00364
On 3 September 1993, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, the Board finds no evidence of error or injustice. However, should the applicant provide evidence of his post-service accomplishments, the Board would entertain his request for an upgrade of his discharge on the basis of clemency.
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-03988
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03988 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from "Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure" to read "Administrative Separation." The complete DPSOS evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03880
The discharge authority approved the discharge on 26 November 1982 and directed that he be discharged, with his service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and has provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency.