Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02725
Original file (BC-2003-02725.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02725
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to  one  that  would
enable her to enlist in the Air Force Reserve (AFRES).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was separated while undergoing punishment and  was  issued  an  RE
code that prevented her from reenlistment  in  the  future.   Had  she
known at the time she would not be able to reenlist,  she  would  have
extended her enlistment to prevent it.

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided copies of her  DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered active duty on 24 September 1997.  She  was  charged
with violating a lawful general regulation  by  wrongfully  using  the
government communication system (e-mail), on or about 13 October 2000,
to send offensive material.  On  28 November  2000,  she  received  an
Article 15 with punishment consisting of reduction in grade to  Airman
First Class (E-3), suspended until 16 May 2001, unless sooner vacated,
and 30  days  additional  duty.   She  was  honorably  discharged  for
Completion of Required Active Service, on 23 September 2001.  She  had
served for 4 years and was separated in  the  grade  of  Airman  First
Class (E-3).  Her DOR was 30 December 1998.  She was  discharged  with
an RE code of 2X (Considered but not Selected for Reenlistment).

After reviewing the applicable instruction, AFI  36-2606,  it  appears
the RE code is correct.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or  injustice  that  would  warrant  a
change to his RE code.  We note that the RE code which was assigned at
the time of her separation accurately reflects  the  circumstances  of
her separation and evidence has not been provided that would  lead  us
to believe otherwise.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02725  in  Executive  Session  on  6  January  2004,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Nov 03.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02585

    Original file (BC-2003-02585.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    She contends other personnel were involved but only she received a letter of reprimand (LOR) and was placed on the commander’s control roster. She responded with a letter to her squadron commander and eight character references - some of which provided insight on how she had been treated by her immediate supervisor. Letter of appeal to her commander.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01742

    Original file (BC-2003-01742.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A follow-up evaluation on 19 September 1996 rendered a diagnosis of major depression vs. dysthymia and she was treated with the antidepressant medicine Prozac. The applicant’s history of recurrent major depression requiring hospitalization was clearly disqualifying for continued active duty. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00972

    Original file (BC-2003-00972.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00972 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded to allow his enlistment in the Armed Forces. In support of the appeal, the applicant submits letters of recommendation. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03258

    Original file (BC-2003-03258.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 August 2001, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 for completion of required active service and was issued an honorable discharge. 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 not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03216

    Original file (BC-2004-03216.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS asserts that, based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. As the applicant presents no facts warranting a change to her SPD code, denial is recommended. On 3 Feb 03, she requested discharge from active duty due to pregnancy and separated on 1 May 03...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03481

    Original file (BC-2002-03481.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03481 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Narrative Reason for Separation be changed from Mental Disorder to Medical. The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects Mental Disorder as the narrative reason for separation. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03832

    Original file (BC-2002-03832.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03832 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reenlistment eligibility (RE) code reflected on his DD Form 214 be changed to allow him to return to active duty. DPPAES further states the reenlistment eligibility code "4D" is the applicable code for a member whose grade is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03557

    Original file (BC-2003-03557.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 7 January 1999 he was married while in the process of transferring between duty stations: Kunsan Air Base (AB), South Korea, to Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah. We took note of his complete submission in judging the merits of this case and while we support the Discharge Review Board’s act of clemency in upgrading his discharge, we are not persuaded he has suffered either an error or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03393

    Original file (BC-2003-03393.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In regards to the applicant’s request for correction of his RE code, no documentation was provided to the Board, to show a record of satisfactory post service accomplishments. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01751

    Original file (BC-2003-01751.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01751 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge on 7 March 1995. After thoroughly reviewing the...