RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03258
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told by an Air Force Reserve recruiter that based on him receiving
an RE code of 2X he should have not received an honorable discharge.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 August 1997.
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. He received a separation designator code of LBK “Completion of
required active service” and an RE code of 2X, “First-term, second-term, or
career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP”.
He served four years on active duty.
After reviewing the applicable instruction, AFI 36-2606, it appears the RE
code issued is accurate.
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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-2003-03258
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 13 Sep 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03393
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-02725
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). Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02091
On 24 Jun 04, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service), and furnished an RE code of 2X (First-term, second term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)). ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied and states, in part, after a review of his military...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02585
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00972
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-2003-02375
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02375 INDEX CODE: 100.3, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. On 15 March 1996, the applicant was notified by his commander he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The applicant should be advised that the RE code 2X is for “First term airman, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program.” We noted that an AF Form 418, Selective...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01139
The reason for the action was that he received a medical narrative summary, dated 1 April 2002, which found that he did not meet minimum medical standards to enlist because of a history of recurrent shoulder dislocation and pain. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01074
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 15 Jun 98 for review and response. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the RE code issued at the time of his discharge was either in error or unjust. While the AF Form 418, denying...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 15 Jun 98 for review and response. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the RE code issued at the time of his discharge was either in error or unjust. While the AF Form 418, denying...