RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01401
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The code given reflects strength reduction. However, he did not take, nor
was he offered a cash incentive from the Air Force for early separation and
he did not agree to separate under this condition. He was separated due to
personality conflicts with former superiors. He was told any attempts to
appeal their decision of not allowing him to reenlist would result in
hardships. Basically, they would try to make life extremely difficult for
him.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 January 1986 in the grade
of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.
On 24 October 1989, the applicant’s commander and supervisor signed an AF
Form 418, Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status
Consideration, denying him reenlistment. His supervisor indicated the
applicant had committed a multitude of serious infractions for which he was
formally counseled or reprimanded. The nature of the infractions and
actions follow:
a. Two separate notifications for delinquency of NCO Club account,
60 days - 20 May 1989 and 90 days - 20 June 1989.
b. Memo for record for a returned check - 29 August 1989.
c. Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go - 6 September 1989.
d. Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing a room inspection - 28
September 1989.
e. LOC for failing a room inspection - 1 October 1989.
f. LOR for failing a room inspection - 2 October 1989.
The supervisor further indicated these weren’t acceptable standards of
behavior for Air Force members and did not recommend retention. The
commander indicated he concurred with the comments of the supervisor. The
applicant acknowledged receipt of the official notification of nonselection
for reenlistment and did not appeal the decision.
The applicant was honorably discharged on 4 January 1990 in the grade of
senior airman under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Early Separation Program -
Strength Reduction). He received an RE code of “2X.” He served four years
and three days of total active duty service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial. They indicated according to AFI 36-2606,
Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, the appropriate RE code is 2X
for individuals considered but not selected for reenlistment under the
Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP). Based on the documentation on file,
there are no errors or injustices that caused an injustice to the
applicant. The separation complies with directives in effect at the time
of his discharge. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify
any errors or injustices which occurred in the discharge processing. He
provided no facts warranting a change to his RE code.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 28 May 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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 and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been
the victim of an error or an injustice. The Board believes that
responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the
separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence that pertinent
regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights
to which entitled at the time of discharge. As a result, the applicant’s
RE code accurately reflects that he was considered but not selected for
reenlistment. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of an error or an 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 29 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
Mr. James E. Short, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-01401 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 April 2004, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Military Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 May 2004.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 2004.
CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03920
On 11 July 1991, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. On 23 September 1991, the discharge authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be discharged with a general characterization of service without P&R. The applicant was discharged effective 25 September 1991 with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service, a separation code of JKN (Misconduct – Pattern of Disciplinary...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03778
In accordance with the Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program, the applicant was honorably discharged on 27 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that since the applicant was discharged under the DOS Rollback Program and was serving on the Control Roster, his separation code of JBK...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 04879
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04879 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code 2X (First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) be changed to a 1 series. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-1996-03199A
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E (with Exhibits A through D). By application, dated 7 Feb 05, the applicant requests that his RE code of 2X be changed to one that would allow him to reenlist in the Air Force Reserve. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In an earlier finding, we determined that there was insufficient evidence to...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01103
On 23 May 12, his supervisor signed the AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, indicating he was not recommending him for reenlistment due to his duty performance and multiple disciplinary issues. On 14 May 12, his supervisor presented him with an AF IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action, notifying him that he intended to place him on the control roster for his duty performance and multiple disciplinary...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02616
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02616 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation and reenlistment codes be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS states they believe the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02205 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry Code (RE) of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) be changed to 3V (Separated w/Vol Sep Incentive) so he can enlist in the Utah Air National Guard. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04792
She had an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to follow a direct order and several Letters of Counseling (LOC) for her work performance. The applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03836
However, his chain of command fabricated two additional LORs in order to involuntarily dismiss him from the military, and then denied his reenlistment in Mar 12. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is included at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an...