Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00870
Original file (BC-2004-00870.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                    DOCKET NUMBER: 04-00870
                                     INDEX CODE: 110.02
                                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                     HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed so he may  enlist  in  the
Army.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time he enlisted in the Air Force, he was young and immature and  had
not put much  thought  into  his  enlistment.   When  he  arrived  at  basic
training, he had second thoughts.  He began to miss his family  and  friends
and could only think about going home.  He was ready to do anything  to  get
home.  So he told Air Force officials that he had lied  about  using  drugs.
He made it sound really bad so he would be  sure  he  would  be  sent  home.
This was a big mistake.  He is asking for a second  chance.   He  now  knows
what he would like to do with his future.  He is ready to commit, serve  and
dedicate himself to the military.

In support of his request, he submits a personal  statement.   His  complete
submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  6  September  2001,  and
was enrolled in Basic Military Training (BMT).

On 26 June  2001,  prior  to  his  enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air  Force,
applicant indicated on  an  AF  Form  2030,  USAF  Drug  and  Alcohol  Abuse
Certificate, that he had never used  or  experimented  with  marijuana,  and
that he never experimented with, used, or possessed  any  illegal  drugs  or
narcotics.  On 18 September 2001,  while  at  BMT,  applicant  indicated  on
Lackland AFB Form 174, Advice For and Statement of Preservice  Drug  Abuser,
that he had used marijuana, stimulants, hallucinogens and narcotics.

On 24 September 2001,  in  accordance  with  AFPD  36-32  and  AFI  36-3208,
paragraph 5.15, Fraudulent Enlistment,  the  commander  initiated  discharge
proceedings  against  the  applicant.   The  commander  indicated  that  the
applicant intentionally  concealed  prior  service  drug  usage,  which,  if
revealed,  could  have  resulted  in  rejection  of  his  enlistment.    The
applicant was advised of his rights in this matter.   Applicant  waived  his
entitlement to counsel and his right to submit  statements  in  his  behalf.
In a legal review of the discharge case  file,  the  assistant  staff  judge
advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that the  applicant  be
discharged from the  Air  Force  with  an  entry-level  separation.   On  26
September 2001, the discharge  authority  directed  that  the  applicant  be
discharged from the Air Force with an entry-level separation.   Accordingly,
applicant was discharged on 28  September  2001  by  reason  of  “Fraudulent
Entry Into Military Service/Drug  Abuse”  with  a  Reenlistment  Eligibility
(RE) code of “2C.”  He had served 2 months and 8 days on active duty.

Examiner’s  Note:   RE  Code  2C  denotes  “Involuntary  separated  with  an
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without  characterization  of
service.”

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS indicates  that  the
applicant’s uncharacterized  service  is  correct  and  in  accordance  with
Department  of  Defense  and  Air  Force   Instructions.    Based   on   the
documentation on file the discharge was consistent with the  procedural  and
substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.   The  AFPC/DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 April 2004, a copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  sent  to  the
applicant for review and comment.  As of this  date,  this  office  has  not
received a response.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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 that would warrant a change to his RE  code.
 Evidence has not been provided that would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the
applicant’s discharge in 2001 was erroneous or unjust.  Therefore,  we  have
no basis to conclude that the corresponding RE code  that  was  assigned  at
the time of his separation does not accurately reflect the circumstances  of
his  separation.   In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  indicate   that   the
information contained in his records is  erroneous  or  that  his  commander
abused  his  discretionary  authority,  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 probable 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 11 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Ms. Olga Crerar, Member
      Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01712

    Original file (BC-2004-01712.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 March 2002, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing nor did he provide any facts warranting an upgrade in his character of service or a change to his reenlistment eligibility code. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00814

    Original file (BC-2005-00814.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 March 2002, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. The base legal office reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge and recommended applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized entry-level separation. The applicant’s RE code had its basis in his involuntary discharge for fraudulent entry into the service.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00582

    Original file (BC-2009-00582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his separation and RE codes are in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we adopt the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice and conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00265

    Original file (BC-2004-00265.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was separated from the Air Force on 13 July 2001, with an uncharacterized entry-level separation, and received an RE code of 2C ”Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.” Since his enlistment was considered fraudulent, his total active service was not creditable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01211

    Original file (BC-2004-01211.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01211 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation (Fraudulent Entry into Military Service - Drug Abuse) and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code (2C) be changed to allow him to enlist in the military service. On 30 March 1995, the applicant was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03339

    Original file (BC-2002-03339.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03339 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. Applicant was separated on 17 October 1996, in the grade of airman with an uncharacterized discharge, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Fraudulent Entry Into Military...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02620

    Original file (BC-2002-02620.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2002-02620 INDEX CODE 110.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason on his DD Form 214 not reflect “Fraudulent Entry” and he be reinstated into the Air Force. On 12 Nov 01, he again signed AF Form 2030 (re-certification at time of enlistment) indicating he had not used any...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01584

    Original file (BC-2005-01584.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 Nov 04, applicant certified she had not used any drug, including marijuana, since she originally completed the AF Form 2030. The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed that applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized entry-level separation. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2005- 01584 in Executive Session on 3 August 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03538

    Original file (BC-2002-03538.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 March 1995, applicant received notification that his commander was recommending him for discharge under the auspices of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Conditions that Interfere with Military Service, Mental Disorders. The applicant was administratively discharged with an entry-level separation for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Dysthymia that existed prior to service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000236

    Original file (0000236.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00236 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so he can go back into the Air Force. The commander advised the applicant that if his recommendation was approved, his discharge would be described as an entry-level separation and he...