Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01712
Original file (BC-2004-01712.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01712
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like his  erroneous  RE  code  to  be  changed  to  a  better
standing.  At the time he indicated he had never used or  experimented
with marijuana or any illegal drug or  narcotics,  he  was  young  and
immature.  He would like it changed so he can pursue a career  in  the
Navy and prove to himself and his family that he has changed  for  the
better.

Applicant provided a copy of  his  separation  document.   Applicant's
complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5  March  2002  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 18 March 2002, applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent  entry.   The
basis for the action was on 16 October 2001 applicant indicated on his
AF Form 2030, USAF Drug Certificate, he had never used or experimented
with marijuana or any illegal drug or  narcotics.   Then  on  5  March
2002, applicant certified that he had not  used  any  drugs  since  he
originally completed the AF Form 2030.  On 13  March  2002,  applicant
completed  Lackland  AFB  Form  174,  Advice  for  and  Statement   of
Preservice  Drug  Abuser,  and   indicated   the   following   illegal
involvement with controlled substances:  (1) Marijuana, October 1992 –
February 2002, 20 days a  month;  (2)  Stimulants,  September  1997  –
October 2001, 10 days a month; (3) Depressants, February 2000 –  April
2000, three days a week;  Hallucinogens,  September  2000  –  December
2001, three days a week; and (5) Narcotics, February  2000  –  October
2001, 15 days a month.   On  18  March  2002,  applicant  acknowledged
receipt of the notification of discharge  and  waived  his  rights  to
consult with legal counsel and submit statements in  his  own  behalf.
The  base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally
sufficient to support separation.  The  discharge  authority  approved
the separation and directed an uncharacterized entry-level separation.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 25 March 2002 under  the
provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of   Airmen
(fraudulent  entry  into  military  service/drug   abuse),   with   an
uncharacterized entry-level  separation.   Since  his  enlistment  was
considered fraudulent, his total active  service  was  non-creditable.
He  was  assigned  a  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)   code   of   2C
(Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level
separation without characterization of service).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  states  that  the  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

Airmen  are  given  entry-level   separation/uncharacterized   service
characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of
continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD) determined
if a member served less than 180 days continuous  active  service,  it
would be unfair to the member and the service  to  characterize  their
limited service.

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.   Therefore,  they
recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 25 June 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  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  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 25 August 2004, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 May 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Jun 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 04.




                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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-2002-03339

    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-2003-01037

    Original file (BC-2003-01037.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that airmen are given entry- level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that the applicant's discharge and the reenlistment code he received...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01594

    Original file (BC-2007-01594.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting a change in her character of service or narrative reason for separation. Rather, as indicated by the Air Force, an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service is used in those cases where the member has not yet completed six months of service at the time separation proceedings were, for whatever reason, initiated. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...

  • 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. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 September 2001,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02563

    Original file (BC-2005-02563.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02563 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 FEB 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to allow him to reenlist in military service. As a result, of the positive drug test, the applicant was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02249

    Original file (BC-2004-02249.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 March 2000, his commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. He had served for 28 days at the time of his discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial noting that the applicant provided no evidence to support his claim.

  • 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. ...