RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02854
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C to 1C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He would like to join the Air National Guard.
No supporting documentation was submitted. The applicant's complete
submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 9 December 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the
age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of six years. He
completed Basic Military Training School in January 2004, and was assigned
as an Intel Application Helper for seven months.
On 28 July 2004, the applicant was disenrolled from training for academic
reasons. He had four course failures through thirteen blocks of
instruction. The applicant met an Academic Review Board (ARB) after his
third failure, and was given one more chance with the provision that he put
forth extra effort both at school and during his off-duty time. After the
ARB, the applicant received a ticket, failed a room inspection, and had his
fourth course failure. The applicant’s flight commander recommended the
applicant be eliminated from the course and discharged from the Air Force
because of his inability to adapt to requirements of the Intel career field
or the Air Force.
On 5 August 2004, the applicant’s commander notified him that she was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of
AFPD 36-32, and AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, because of Unsatisfactory
Performance. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and
waived his rights to consult counsel and submit statements in his own
behalf. On 6 August 2004, the discharge case file was reviewed and
coordinated on in the Wing Staff Judge Advocate’s office. The recommended
separation was subsequently approved by the discharge authority, who
directed that the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge
without probation and rehabilitation. On 11 August 2004, the applicant was
honorably discharged because of unsatisfactory performance. A reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code of RE-2C (Involuntarily separated with an entry level
separation without characterization of service) was assigned. He had
served nine months and five days on active duty.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. DPPRS states based on the documentation
on file in the master personnel records the discharge was consistent with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation,
and the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
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 reenlistment eligibility code.
DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for
review and comment on 8 October 2004. As of this date, this office has
received no response (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim
of an error or injustice. At the time members are separated from the Air
Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their
service and circumstances of their separation. After a thorough review of
the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding
the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the
appropriate directives. Therefore, we find no basis upon which to
recommend favorable action on this application.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES 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 that the application will
only be reconsidered upon the submission
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 1 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Panel Member
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Panel Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with Docket
Number BC-2004-02854:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 04.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Oct 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03000
She served 2 years, 2 months and 13 days of active service. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. However, after reviewing the applicant’s records, the Board believes the narrative reason for separation and her current RE code are somewhat harsh.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03006
He did not appear to have fully grasped the material and had a difficult time during the PC. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation. The applicant was unable to progress in technical training, first in the computer programming career field and then when he was reclassified in the telephone systems AFSC.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00360
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his separation, he was told he would be able to enlist in any branch of service but the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Medical Consultant noted the applicant requested an early separation based on his sickle cell trait. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02346
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02346 INDEX CODE 110.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed and he be reinstated in the Air Force with reclassification into another career field. Separation was recommended for those airmen who exhibited disciplinary/motivational...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02977
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02977 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 APR 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed to “academic difficulties” rather than “unsatisfactory performance,” and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily...
On 16 Apr 98, he was honorably discharged in the grade of airman (E-2) under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (unsatisfactory performance), with a separation code of “JHJ”. A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Education and Training Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, stated that after reviewing the applicant’s request, reconsideration of his separation code should be approved. RICHARD A....
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02418
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. ___________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02601
As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). The Board majority is not persuaded by the evidence presented that the entry-level separation characterization received by the former member should be changed to an honorable discharge. CHARLES E. BENNETT Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of , AFBCMR BC-2004-02601 I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01690
The applicant’s commander recommended she be discharged under the Force Shaping Program. At the time a member is separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE Code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2005- 01690 in Executive Session on 10 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02948
Please consider the time he has spent in the U.S. Army after he was discharged from the U.S. Air Force; it was eight years or more. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Applicant did not submit any evidence...