Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-01151
Original file (BC-2003-01151.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01151
                                       INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                    COUNSEL:  ANTHONY W. WALLUK

      XXXXXXXXX                         HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 Jul 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded a 20-year active  duty  retirement  in  the  grade  of  master
sergeant (E-7) effective June 1996.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was improperly denied reenlistment and was separated under  the  Enlisted
Early Release Program due to his commander’s  personal  involvement  in  his
divorce.  He was denied the opportunity to continue his  Air  Force  career,
the opportunity to be promoted to master sergeant, and a length  of  service
retirement.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal  statement,
a statement from his counsel, and  copies  of  extracts  from  his  military
personnel records.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 June 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the  age
of 18 in the grade  of  airman  basic  for  a  period  of  four  years.   He
reenlisted on 17 April  1981  for  a  period  of  five  years.   This  later
enlistment was extended on 3 April 1986 for a period of  8  months  for  the
purpose of entry into training, resulting in a new date of separation of  16
December 1986.   He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant (E-5) effective and with a date of rank of  1  November  1980.   He
received nine performance reports between  29  December  1977  and  4 August
1985 all with overall ratings of 9.

On 4 June 1985, the applicant was nonselected for reenlistment based on  his
failure to conform to the requirements of  the  Weight  Management  Program.
His commander approved a weight waiver  on  15 January  1986  based  on  the
recommendation of medical authorities.  On 25 March 1986, the applicant  was
selected for reenlistment.
On or about 13  August  1986,  the  applicant’s  commander  nonselected  the
applicant for award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal  during  the  period
29 June 1985 to 9 December 1986.

On 29 September 1986, the applicant was  involuntarily  discharged  with  an
honorable discharge with a separation code of J22 (early separation  program
- strength reduction) and a reentry code of 4I (serving on control  roster).
 He served ten years and three months on active duty.

In an affidavit  provided  by  the  applicant,  signed  by  the  applicant’s
commander, marked filed by a Clerk of a Family Court  on  16  October  1986,
the commander indicated he had verbally counseled the applicant on  numerous
occasions  concerning  his  apparent  lack  of   financial   responsibility,
beginning on or about 14 January 1986.  In April 1986, based  on  continuing
evidence in the form of notification of  dishonored  checks,  the  commander
stated he formally counseled the  applicant  and  placed  his  name  on  the
wing’s control roster for financial irresponsibility on 10 April 1986.   The
commander indicated he advised the applicant at that time he  would  not  be
permitted to reenlist if during the period of four months prior to  the  end
of his commitment he did not show significant improvement in  his  financial
management.  The commander’s affidavit  also  contained  references  to  the
applicant’s failure to maintain weight standards.

The applicant’s file contains a request from an Air Force  recruiter,  dated
13 March 1989, requesting a copy of the applicant’s records for the  purpose
of enlistment in the Air Force  Reserve.   The  applicant  signed  the  form
authorizing release  of  his  records.   By  letter  dated  2  August  1989,
authorities at the Air Force  Personnel  Center,  Reenlistment  Program  and
Policy Branch, informed the applicant that his RE code  was  waiverable  for
the purpose of enlistment in a prior service enlistment  consideration.   He
was advised concerning the procedures for requesting such a waiver  and  for
his right to appeal to the Board should his request for a waiver be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the  applicant’s  request.   DPPRRP  states
the applicant’s active service totals  ten  years  and  three  months,  well
short of the required time for an active duty retirement  in  accordance  to
Title 10 United States Code Section 8914.  In 1989,  the  applicant  applied
through the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records to have  his
reenlistment (RE) code changed because he wished to  join  a  Reserve  unit.
On 2 August 1989, the Reenlistment Programs and Policy Branch at (then)  Air
Force Military Personnel Center advised the applicant that his  existing  RE
Code of “4I” could be waived  for  prior  enlistment  consideration  through
active or Reserve recruiters.  The  applicant  has  not  submitted  evidence
that he requested or was denied such a  waiver  in  order  to  continue  his
active or Reserve service  to  qualify  for  a  20-year  active  or  Reserve
retirement.  He was advised that he had the  opportunity  to  continue  with
his Air Force career,  which  could  have  resulted  in  the  promotion  and
retirement  eligibility  he  desired.   The  AFPC/DPPRRP  evaluation,   with
attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that on 3  September  1986,  his
commander notified the applicant that he was recommended for discharge  from
the Air Force as a part of the force reduction program  in  effect  at  that
time.  The applicant met the criteria for the program because he  was  on  a
control roster for financial mismanagement and had an RE code of  “4I.”   It
is DPPRS’s opinion that the applicant’s discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The DPPRS  evaluation  is
at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSFM recommends denial.  After reviewing the applicant’s  records,  it
is DPSFM’s opinion that his discharge was appropriate based on  his  control
roster action during a strength  reduction.   The  DPSFM  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He did not submit an appeal to this  Board  in  1989.   He  only  requested
assistance from his Congressman.  He was aware the RE code of “4I” could be
waived for enlisting in the Reserve; however, he  was  only  interested  in
returning to active duty so he never applied for  a  waiver.   He  had  ten
years of outstanding performance evaluations and not a bad mark that  would
indicate any reason for a discharge.  While he may have technically met the
criteria for discharge under force reduction, his  commander  had  ulterior
motives in the denial  of  his  enlistment.   As  support,  he  submits  an
affidavit signed by his commander, which was filed on behalf of his wife in
a divorce action.  The financial problems the commander references  in  the
affidavit were caused by his wife  writing  bad  checks.   He  brought  the
financial problems to the attention of his first sergeant  and  he  thought
they were resolved.  His weight problems that he struggled with were  under
control and should not have been a factor in  his  denial  of  reenlistment
(see Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.

    a.  Evidence has not been provided that would lead us  to  believe  the
applicant’s discharge in September 1986 under the provisions of the FY 1986
Enlisted Early Release Program was  erroneous  or  unjust.   The  available
evidence indicates the applicant was identified for  separation  under  the
program based on the fact that his commander placed his name on the control
roster some five months earlier  in  April  1986.   While  the  commander’s
affidavit does mention weight  issues  and  the  evidence  of  record  does
indicate a waiver of the applicant’s weight was approved in  January  1986,
other than the assertions  of  applicant  and  counsel,  we  have  seen  no
evidence indicating the applicant’s placement on the control roster because
of financial irresponsibility was improper or  an  abuse  of  discretionary
authority.  In the absence of evidence showing he was  treated  differently
than others similarly situated at that time, we have no basis to  find  his
involuntary  separation  under  the  approved  early  release  program  was
erroneous or unjust.

    b.  We believe it should be noted that the  applicant  was  advised  in
1989 that a waiver of his RE code was  possible  for  entry  into  a  prior
service  program.   This  response  was  prompted,   apparently,   by   the
applicant’s  attempt  to  enter  the  Air  Force  Reserve.   (There  is  no
indication he explored the possibility of  a  return  to  the  Regular  Air
Force.)  It should also be noted that the needs of the service to  which  a
former member applies are paramount in determining whether or  not  such  a
waiver is approved.  It appears the applicant chose not to  pursue  reentry
in the Regular Air Force or the Air Force Reserve at that time.

    c.  Based on our findings with respect to  the  applicant’s  separation
and absent evidence showing he was miscounseled in any way  concerning  his
ability to resume his military career in  1989,  we  are  not  inclined  to
afford him such extraordinary relief in the form of nearly  ten  additional
years of active duty service credit and advancement  in  grade  from  staff
sergeant to master sergeant with entitlement to an active  duty  retirement
in that grade.  Accordingly, the applicant’s  requests  are  not  favorably
considered.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 27 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 MS. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2003-01151:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 02, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/ DPPRRP, dated 18 Nov 03, with
                 attachment.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/ DPPRS, dated 4 Aug 03.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/ DPSFM, dated 31 Jul 03.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Nov 03.
      Exhibit G.  Counsel’s Rebuttal, dated 19 Nov 04, with
                 Attachments.




                                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03526

    Original file (BC 2014 03526.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03526 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) Code “4I” which denotes “Serving on Control Roster” be changed to “3K” which denotes “Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies” or “3B” which denotes “1st or 2nd term or career airman ineligible to reenlist.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02262

    Original file (BC-2004-02262.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was serving on the control roster at the time of his discharge. A complete copy of the DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 22 Oct 04 for review and comment within 30 days. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03778

    Original file (BC-2004-03778.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01150

    Original file (BC-2006-01150.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01150 INDEX CODE: 100.00, 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 OCTOBER 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01222

    Original file (BC-2005-01222.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    He remained in the WMP for a period of 2 years and 10 months, during which time he received 2 LORS, control roster action, and demotion to the grade of sergeant for his failure to maintain Air Force weight standards. His military medical records indicate that during two separate separation physical examinations he was found medically qualified for separation and had described his health as very good, with no health problems. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03392

    Original file (BC-2004-03392.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004- 03392 INDEX CODE: 100.06, 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 MAY 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 3K be changed to a more favorable 1-series RE code. To date, they have not received any additional documentation or had any contact...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01243

    Original file (BC-2006-01243.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 July 1987 the commander notified applicant he was being placed on the control roster effective 16 July 1987. Therefore, at the time of his discharge, he was still serving on the control roster. 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 primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9901283

    Original file (9901283.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished responses and additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102087

    Original file (0102087.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was discharged from the Air Force on 1 June 2001 under provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (pregnancy or childbirth), with an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at that time. A complete copy of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01343

    Original file (BC-2007-01343.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Accordingly, the Board majority believes that correction of her RE code to a waiverable code is warranted based on the merits of this case. Therefore, the board majority recommends that her records be corrected to the extent indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 25 June 2004, she was separated with a...