RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00568
INDEX NUMBER: 110.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Separation Code of “JBK,” discharged after completion of required
service, be changed.
Her “2X” Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code, “First-term, second-term,
or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under
the SRP” be changed to allow her reenlistment in the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her nonselection for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment
Program (SRP) was motivated by a personal conflict between she and her
chain of command.
She only received one letter of counseling (LOC) from the supervisor
that nonrecommended her for reenlistment. The LOC noted that her work
performance lacked motivation. However, this is illogical since she
was on a medical waiver at the time. He disregarded her work
limitations and she was ordered to continue her flight-line duties
while she was pregnant.
In a two-page statement, applicant provides an account of her efforts
to appeal her reenlistment denial.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty on 22 Jul 99 as a weapons load
crewmember. The applicant received two enlisted performance reports
(EPRs) during her active service with overall ratings of four and
three. On 7 Jun 02, the applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her
for reenlistment. On 11 Jun 02, the applicant’s commander did not
select her for reenlistment. The applicant was discharged on 21 Jul
03 with an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s appeal. They opine
that the commander’s decision to deny the applicant reenlistment was
justified. She has not provided evidence to show that the commander’s
action was inappropriate.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9
Apr 04 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has
not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Although the applicant states
that she was not recommended for reenlistment due to personal conflict
between her and her flight supervision, we note that the approval
authority was the squadron commander and that the decision was upheld
on appeal by the group commander. Given the incidents documented on
the AF Form 418 and the subsequent legal review prepared on the
applicant’s appeal, we do not find the actions of the applicant’s
chain of command to have constituted error or injustice. 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 Docket Number BC-2004-
00568 in Executive Session on 24 June 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 04.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 19 Mar 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 04.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02811
His performance to date did not warrant he be selected for reenlistment. On 7 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander concurred with the supervisor’s recommendation and nonselected him for reenlistment. At the end of the deferral period, the applicant received a letter stating his promotion had been placed in a withhold status because of his nonselection for reenlistment.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-00561
On 4 Oct 05, the applicant’s commander notified her via an AF Form 286A, “Notification of Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program Permanent Decertification/Disqualification Action,” he was concurring with the recommendation of the medical authority to permanently decertify her from the PRP. Air Force Form 418, dated 29 Sep 04, which indicates she was selected for reenlistment just 13 months prior to the AF Form 418 dated 28 Oct 05 denying her reenlistment. After reviewing the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02415
The purpose stated on his extension request is “retire during a requested extension period.” The extension request was approved on 19 April 2004, establishing a date of separation of 10 February 2005. On 22 February 2006, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered and approved the applicant’s request to void and remove from his records, his Senior Enlisted Performance Report rendered for the period 31 May 2003 through 30 May 2004. In fact, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00326
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In her quest to become pregnant and have a family, with over 19 years of service, she elected to take the Special Separation Benefit (SSB) in order to pay for medical procedures she could not obtain in the military. Based on the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel file, she voluntarily applied to separate from the Air Force to receive the Special Separation Benefit being offered at that...
A letter was submitted requesting a copy of the IG Investigative report pertaining to the applicant and SMSgt F- ---. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Mar 01 for review and response within 30 days. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of her appeal, we do...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00382
On 11 January 1989, his supervisor did not recommend him for reenlistment. Applicant’s performance profile follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 14 Apr 87 8 1 Dec 87 7 1 Dec 88 7 _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant has not provided any additional information to indicate that his RE code was erroneously or unfairly assessed to his file. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01370
On 13 Mar 03, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years in the grade of airman first class (E-3). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial noting that at the time of the applicant’s enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 13 Mar 03, she both initialed and signed an AF Form 3006 indicating she was enlisting in the pay grade of E-3, and that she had no claim to a higher grade. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01938
The applicant asserts that since the MFM lost his retraining request (Air Force Form 4032, Application for Enlisted Retraining), he did not qualify for the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) that ended on 30 April 2004. Even though the applicant does not include it in his contentions, it appears there was a delay between the time the Squadron Section Commander approved the retraining package on 15 April 04 and the time it was approved by the Military...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01569
Applicant believes with all of the support documentation in his case, he is a very valuable asset to the Air Force In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement; extracts from his military personnel record, including copies of his performance reports and AF IMT 418s, along with several letters of character reference. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Applicant’s commander concurred and denied his reenlistment.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03731
On 14 April 1999, an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, was initiated not recommending his reenlistment. The DPPAE evaluation, with attachments, at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Feb 2005 for review and comment within 30 days. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE...