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
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1993-06806A
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...
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
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
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
[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
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.
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.
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...
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
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...