Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03070
Original file (BC-2004-03070.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03070
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was involuntarily discharged and would like to be a career airman.

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 16 August  2000  for  a
period of four (4) years.  She was progressively promoted to the grade
of airman first class on 16 December 2001.  She received one  Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR) closing 15 April 2002, in which  the  overall
evaluation was “3.”

On 19 June 2002,  applicant’s  commander  notified  her  that  he  was
recommending an honorable discharge  for  unsatisfactory  performance.
Basis for the action:  (1) On or about  28  February  2002,  applicant
took the End of Course (EOC) examination requiring a  minimum  passing
score of 65%.  Her report of court examination indicated she  received
a failing score of 52%.  On or about 16 May 2002, applicant again took
the EOC examination requiring a minimum passing  score  of  65%.   Her
report of course examination indicated she received a failing score of
61%.  (2) After her first EOC failure, a CDC  Course  Failure  session
was held on 25 April 2002.  During this session,  the  following  plan
was established:  (a) Supervised study time at  work  as  the  mission
permits.   (b)  Off-duty   study.    (c)   Work   center   supervisors
administering practice tests to prepare her for  the  re-test  and  to
also assist her in test taking practices.

In addition to the above, applicant received four Letters of Reprimand
(LORs), three for dereliction of duty and one for disrespect/provoking
gestures.  Applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  of
discharge and after consulting with legal counsel waived her right  to
submit statements in her own behalf.  The base legal  office  reviewed
the case and found it legally  sufficient  to  support  discharge  and
recommended  applicant  be  discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge
without  probation  and  rehabilitation.   The   discharge   authority
approved the separation and directed that applicant be discharged with
an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 28 June  2002  under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(unsatisfactory performance), with an honorable discharge.  She served
1 year, 10 months and 12 days on active duty.  She received an RE code
of “2C.”  RE code 2C  indicates  an  involuntary  separation  with  an
honorable discharge or entry-level separation without characterization
of service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/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.    The
discharge was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.
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 19 November 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.  The applicant’s RE code had  its
basis in her discharge because  of  unsatisfactory  performance.   The
applicant has provided no evidence to indicate the information in  her
discharge  case  file  was  erroneous,  or  substantial  rights   were
violated, or her commanders abused their discretionary authority.   In
addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence that would  lead
us to believe that she  has  successfully  overcome  the  shortcomings
leading  to  her  separation.   Without   such   evidence,   favorable
consideration or her request is not possible.

_________________________________________________________________

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 1 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
                 Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
BC-2004-03070:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Nov 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Nov 04.




                             ROSCOE HINTON JR.
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00087

    Original file (BC-2004-00087.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant upgrading his RE code. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00928

    Original file (BC-2003-00928.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending the discharge, the applicant was given ample opportunity to study and prepare for his Career Development Course (CDC). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 4 June 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01768

    Original file (BC-2002-01768.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time she was released, she took her end of course exams twice and failed both times due to working 12 hour days and suffering a miscarriage. 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01896

    Original file (BC-2005-01896.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 01896 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 DECEMBER 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2C” to a “3” series to permit reentry into the military. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03906

    Original file (BC-2004-03906.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. Applicant was honorably discharged on 6 Nov 03, in the grade of airman (E-2), under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of unsatisfactory performance. Applicant’s response to Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200444

    Original file (0200444.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00444 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow her enlistment in the Armed Forces. Although the applicant states that she requested discharge, there is no letter from the applicant requesting a discharge. Insufficient...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02930

    Original file (BC-2003-02930.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02930 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2C” to “1”. He consulted with counsel and submitted a conditional waiver of the rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing. The waiver request...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01890

    Original file (BC-2003-01890.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 9 Jul 03. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103562

    Original file (0103562.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander was recommending that applicant receive an honorable discharge. In an effort to study and pass the second final testing, he and his trainer reviewed the CDC course material. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided letters of recommendation, a letter from his congressman, an application for an Air Force Reserve position, and a letter from the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02941

    Original file (BC-2002-02941.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02941, Case 2 XXXXXXXXXX INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Code and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so he can enlist the Air Force Reserve. The commander recommended an honorable discharge. The applicant is requesting his...