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
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03526
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
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
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
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
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
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
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...
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...
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
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...