RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00360
INDEX CODE: 100.06
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow his
reentry into military service.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his separation, he was told he would be able to enlist
in any branch of service but the Air Force. However, he was not
allowed to do so when he attempted to enlist. He had the option to
voluntarily separate from the Air Force because of his sickle cell
trait, which he exercised. However, because of his RE code, it is as
if he was forced out of the military.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 Feb 02 for a period
of four years, in the grade of airman basic.
A Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 19 Feb 02, indicates the
applicant was advised he had the sickle cell trait.
On 21 Feb 02, he signed a Statement of Understanding of Sickle-Cell
Trait and Discharge Options and opted to elect discharge based on
testing positive for the sickle cell trait.
On 26 Feb 02, he requested he be discharged for miscellaneous reasons
based on his sickle cell trait.
On 8 Mar 02, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s
separation.
On 11 Mar 02, the applicant was separated under the provisions of AFI
36-3208 (Miscellaneous/General Reasons) with an entry level separation
and assigned an RE code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without
characterization of service). He was credited with 29 days of active
service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Medical Consultant noted the applicant requested an early
separation based on his sickle cell trait. In his view, proper
procedures were followed and the applicant was provided the
appropriate information and time to make his decision. According to
the Medical Consultant, the applicant’s concern about being told he
could enlist into another branch of service is outside the scope of
his advisory.
A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit
C.
AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial indicating the applicant’s RE code was
correct. In their view, there was nothing to support the course of
action requested by the applicant.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 27
Aug 04 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. We note the Secretary of the Air
Force has statutory authority to promulgate rules and regulations
governing the administration of the Air Force. In the exercise of
that authority, the Secretary has determined that members separated
from the Air Force would be furnished an RE code predicated upon the
quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. The
evidence of record indicates the applicant was given an entry level
separation for miscellaneous/general reasons after he opted to
separate based on his testing positive for the sickle cell trait. As
a result, he was assigned an RE code of 2C. It appears the
applicant’s RE code was appropriately assigned and accurately
reflected the circumstances of his separation, and, we find no
evidence to indicate the assigned RE code was in error. In view of
the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the
applicant’s request that his RE code of 2C be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2004-00360 in Executive Session on 6 Oct 04, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 28 Jul 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 25 Aug 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 04.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00731
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00731 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility code of 2C be changed to 3K and his reason for separation be changed to Secretarial Authority. On 2 July 2002, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for separation based on his...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02724 INDEX CODE: 110 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated into the Regular Air Force. The applicant was discharged on 13 August 1998 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Miscellaneous/General Reasons) with an Entry Level Separation and character of service...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00047
The applicant’s health record, dated 7 June 2004, indicates she tested positive for sickle cell trait. On 10 June 2004, the applicant signed and dated a Statement of Understanding of Sickle-Cell Trait and Discharge Options, indicating she elected discharge versus remaining on active duty. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01489
In support of his application, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of his military personnel records, a letter from the applicant’s father to the basic training commander, and a statement from the applicant’s recruiter. DPPRS states that by signing the “Statement of Understanding of Sickle-Cell Trait and Discharge Options” the applicant acknowledged the Air Force’s policy on sickle cell trait and understood, if he elected to separate, he would not be allowed back into the...
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: tary records of the Department of the Air Force relating t be corrected to show that, in conjunction with her entry was issued a reenlistment eligibility code of “X,” rather than...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03000
She served 2 years, 2 months and 13 days of active service. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. However, after reviewing the applicant’s records, the Board believes the narrative reason for separation and her current RE code are somewhat harsh.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02576
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02576 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H be changed. Applicant was honorably discharged on 30 Nov 98 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Hardship) and assigned an RE code of 4H (Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00976
SGPS states a review of the records provided shows the applicant was separated after blood tests demonstrated he had the sickle cell trait. DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction. The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his discharge is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01987 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized entry-level separation be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00971
The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 Sep 10 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2010-0971 in Executive Session on 16 November 2010, under...