RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02646
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was an asset to the Air Force when she was on active duty. She
will be even more of an asset to the National Guard if her RE code is
changed. She misses serving her country and would very much like to
do so again.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of her DD Form 214.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 June 1989. She was
promoted to the grade of airman first class on 20 October 1990, and
the grade of senior airman on 20 June 1992. She received six enlisted
performance reports (EPRs) closing 19 February 1991, 20 December 1991,
20 December 1992, 20 December 1993, 20 December 1994, and 20 December
1995, in which the overall evaluations were “3,” “4,” “4,” “4,” “4,”
and “4.”
Applicant was released from active duty on 2 December 1996, under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208, Completion of Required Active Service, in
the grade of senior airman with an honorable character of service.
She served 7 years, 5 months and 11 days on active duty. She was
issued an RE code of 2X, First-term airman considered but not selected
under Selective Reenlistment Program.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. They conducted a review of the
applicant’s personnel file and considered all documentation submitted
by the applicant. Based on the quality of the applicant’s records and
supporting documentation on the Record Review Rip (RRR) dated 2
November 1996, it is clearly evident that the applicant was not
recommended for continued military service.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states that she really wants to be able to join the Air
National Guard. She would be a real asset to the Air National Guard.
She made a real contribution to the Air Force when she was on active
duty. She did her job and did it well. She was never a disciplinary
problem. Her only major flaw was her weight, but that never hindered
her ability to do her job. In fact, she did it better and took it
more seriously than the majority of her fellow airmen, without
complaint. If today’s weight and physical fitness regulations were in
place she would have never been on the weight program and it would not
be an issue now. She has grown and matured even more since she got
out of the service. She feels she would contribute even more now and
be a real asset to the Air National Guard. The Air Force is a part of
her and she knows that is where she belongs. She is asking that her
reenlistment code be change so she can once again be where she
belongs, a part of the Air Force.
Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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 2 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Member
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 22 Sep 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 1 Nov 04.
MARILYN M. THOMAS
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01637
They conducted a review of the personnel record and found nothing to support the change requested. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 24 Jun 05 for review and comment within 30 days. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03701
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03701 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to show a favorable discharge and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and to either be compensated monetarily or be credited for 20 years of service. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00339
Under current provisions, AFI-36-2606, Reenlistment in the Air Force, a “2P” RE code is used to identify personnel “absent without leave; deserter or dropped from rolls.” However, there is no need to change her RE Code, because it was properly assessed under current provisions at the time. We note that the applicant was discharged from the Air Force for “marginal performance.” The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that she should have received an RE code that would allow her...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03469
Applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL PROMOTION EVALUATION 29 Mar 99 4 01 Nov 99 4 01 Nov 00 3 AF Form 418 (Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration), dated 1 Feb 01, reflects the applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment, stating the member has insisted she is not capable of performing the Life Support duties that are required of her. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02562
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS states based on the fact applicant was serving in the grade of airman first class and had completed over 31 months of active duty, she was ineligible to reenlist or extend her enlistment. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03605
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03605 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X (First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP) be changed. Applicant’s record does not contain a discharge case file or the commander’s...
Discharge action was initiated in the applicant’s case due to her failure to meet military obligations by not completing her dependent care certification. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 the that the application will only be reconsidered...
Discharge action was initiated in the applicant’s case due to her failure to meet military obligations by not completing her dependent care certification. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 the that the application will only be reconsidered...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01726
DPPRS notes the 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 a change to his separation or RE code. DPPRS states a Records Transmittal Request on file indicates applicant submitted an Airman’s Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation; however, the request is not on file in the applicant’s master personnel records. At the time members are...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02857
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02857 INDEX CODE: 110.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment code (RE) be changed to allow her to join the Air Force Reserve. The applicant’s commander notified her on 6 July 1989, that he was not recommending her for promotion because she received an Article...