Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03451
Original file (BC-2003-03451.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03451

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to  allow  eligibility  to
reenter the Air Force or the National Guard.
_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was placed on a control roster in January 2002.  His  commander  informed
him that it would be removed from his record six months later;  however,  it
was still in his record nine months later.

No supporting documents were submitted with  the  applicant’s  appeal.   The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  29
September 1993.  He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant (E-5).  Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)  profile  for
the last 10 reporting periods follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

         (E-4)     1 Mar 97  5 - Immediate Promotion
              1 Mar 98 4 - Ready for Promotion
              1 Mar 99 5
              1 Mar 00 5
         (E-5)    11 Feb 01  3 - Consider for Promotion
             11 Jul 01 4
             11 Jul 02 3 (Referral Report)

The applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  2  November  2002  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (completion of required active service).   He  had
completed a total of 9 years and 27 days and was serving  in  the  grade  of
staff sergeant (E-5) at the time of discharge.  He received an  RE  Code  of
4I, which defined means "Serving on the Control Roster."
_________________________________________________________________

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 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.   Other  than  his   own
assertion, no evidence has been presented to  substantiate  the  applicant’s
claim that his name should have been removed from the control  roster  after
a six-month period.  Having thoroughly reviewed 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.  Applicant’s RE code of 4I  can  be  waived  for  prior  service
enlistment consideration; however, whether or  not  he  is  successful  will
depend on the needs of the particular service.  In view  of  the  foregoing,
we conclude that no basis exists 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-2003-03451
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 7 Oct 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.



                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02430

    Original file (BC-2007-02430.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, if the applicant has evidence to show the effective date or the expiration date of the Control Roster action, the Board may consider changing the RE code. HQ AFPC/DPSOA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant notes that the Control Roster would have expired by the time he was discharged. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Sep 07.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02838

    Original file (BC-2003-02838.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of applicant’s appeal, he submitted a personal statement; an email, dated 19 May 03, from his military personnel flight to 4th AF/DPM concerning contractual errors; Reserve Order P- 045 reflecting promotion to staff sergeant, effective 1 Jul 91; copies of a 1 Sep 91 training certificate, a Report of Individual Personnel (RIP), dated 31 Jul 91, and a DD Form 2AF (Reserve) ID Card issued 17 Aug 91, all reflecting the rank of staff sergeant; copies of DD Form 214, Certificate of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC2003-02377A4th

    Original file (BC2003-02377A4th.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPD recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to indicate any error or injustice occurred during his processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES), or that the RE code is incorrect. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102349

    Original file (0102349.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB). The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance during the contested rating period.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02502

    Original file (BC 2013 02502.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    His records be corrected to show that he is now and was promotion eligible during the time he was placed on a Control Roster. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOA recommends closing the case, since the applicant's record currently reflects his requested actions and they do not have the history, nor are they the OPR for control roster actions; however, based on the information provided the previous RE code 4I would have been a result of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-02051

    Original file (BC-2009-02051.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 Sep 97 as an airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years. The RE code of 4I is correct since the applicant was on the Control Roster at the time of his separation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02797

    Original file (BC-2003-02797.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-02797 INDEX CODE 110.02 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reason for his 2003 entry-level separation (ELS) be changed and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from “4C” to “2Q” or “3K.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03845

    Original file (BC-2003-03845.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Counsel further asserts that because the instruction cited in the reprimand imposed on the applicant under Article 15 was not in effect at the time of the applicant’s alleged misconduct and there was no paragraph 5 as referred to, the reprimand was in error and constituted an erroneous basis for the discharge action subsequently initiated against the applicant. Counsel also asserts that the reprimand imposed on the applicant under Article 15 admonishes the applicant for misconduct that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00370

    Original file (BC-2002-00370.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00370 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) awarded for the period 23 Mar 98 to 16 Jul 01, which was revoked, be reinstated. A completely new recommendation package would need to be submitted, with the inclusive dates of her tour at Moody...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02770

    Original file (BC-2003-02770.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...