Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1994-02615A
Original file (BC-1994-02615A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved



                             SECOND ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1994-02615
            INDEX CODE 100.06
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On  31  Oct  94,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  an  application
pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his RE code be
changed.  A complete copy  of  the  Record  of  Proceedings  (ROP)  is
attached at Exhibit E (with Exhibit A).

On 29 Aug 02, the Board reconsidered and again denied the  applicant’s
request that his RE code be changed.  A complete copy of the  Addendum
to ROP is at Exhibit F (with Exhibit D).

By application, dated 9 Dec 03, the applicant again  requests  his  RE
code be changed so that he may be allowed to  reenlist.   He  contends
that his supervisor allowed personal bias to  affect  his  performance
rating.  He was advised that if he improved his rating,  he  would  be
allowed to reenlist.   However,  he  was  again  denied  reenlistment,
contrary to what he was told.  Since his separation, his love for  the
Air Force has grown, and he yearns to be a member again.  He  believes
he now has more to offer the Air Force.   He  is  just  asking  for  a
second chance.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provided  both  personal  and
supportive statements.

The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with   attachments,   is   at
Exhibit G.

By  letter,  dated  22  Jan  04,  the  applicant  provided  additional
documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration, which is  attached
at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice to warrant amending the applicant’s RE
code. We noted the numerous supporting  statements  attesting  to  the
applicant’s character and work ethic. Of particular  significance  was
the letter from the rater of  the  referral  performance  report.  The
rater, whose evaluation was instrumental in  denying  the  applicant’s
reenlistment, now admits to a personal bias against him. A majority of
the Board is persuaded by this statement that the applicant should  be
afforded the opportunity to apply for a waiver to  reenlist.  In  this
respect, an RE code from the “3” series would permit the applicant  to
apply for enlistment and, should he have the desirable skills  and  is
otherwise  acceptable,  the  Reserves   may   elect   to   waive   his
ineligibility and allow  him  to  reenlist.   Whether  or  not  he  is
successful will depend on the needs of the service,  and  the  Board’s
recommendation in no way guarantees he will be allowed to reenter  the
armed services. Therefore, the majority of the  Board  recommends  his
reenlistment code be changed to “3K” (Reserved for use by HQ  AFPC  or
the AFBCMR when no other RE code applies or is appropriate).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show  that,  in  conjunction
with his honorable discharge on  28  August  1992,  he  was  issued  a
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K,” rather than “2X.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 17 March 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                  Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

By a majority vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as
recommended. Mr. Barbino voted  to  deny  because  he  questioned  the
authenticity of the signature on the rater’s supporting statement, but
does not wish to submit a Minority Report. The  following  documentary
evidence  relating  to  AFBCMR   Docket   Number   BC-1994-02615   was
considered:

   Exhibit E.  ROP, dated 17 Nov 94, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Addendum to ROP, dated 9 Oct 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Dec 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jan 04, w/atch.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-1994-02615




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to     be corrected to show that, in conjunction with
his honorable discharge on 28 August 1992, he was issued a
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K,” rather than “2X.”





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1993-06806A

    Original file (BC-1993-06806A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. On 20 May 99, applicant provided additional documentation requested reconsideration of his application (see Exhibit D). Therefore, after noting his overall service record and in consideration of his honorable discharge, we believe he should be given an RE code of “3K” which will afford him the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the armed services. The following documentary evidence was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9306806A

    Original file (9306806A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. On 20 May 99, applicant provided additional documentation requested reconsideration of his application (see Exhibit D). Therefore, after noting his overall service record and in consideration of his honorable discharge, we believe he should be given an RE code of “3K” which will afford him the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the armed services. The following documentary evidence was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03104

    Original file (BC-2003-03104.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received a separation designator code of JBK and a RE code of 2X, “First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP”. 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 presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03104

    Original file (BC-2003-03104.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received a separation designator code of JBK and a RE code of 2X, “First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP”. 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 presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-1996-10007A

    Original file (BC-1996-10007A.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    [Examiner’s Note: A number of officers during this time frame had their performance records and PRFs reevaluated by independent senior raters and Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) presidents because of the original senior raters’ inappropriate use of PME and advanced academic education information. A copy of the Addendum ROP (AROP) is at Exhibit G. In a 10 Feb 05 appeal, the applicant requests reconsideration contending he would have been promoted if his squadron commander...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-01906B

    Original file (BC-1995-01906B.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 September 1996, the Board considered and denied his requests. Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit Q. For counsel’s information, that memo and the related documents were submitted by the applicant in his original appeal.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9501906B

    Original file (9501906B.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 September 1996, the Board considered and denied his requests. Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit Q. For counsel’s information, that memo and the related documents were submitted by the applicant in his original appeal.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9701581

    Original file (9701581.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9701581A

    Original file (9701581A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-01581A

    Original file (BC-1997-01581A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...