RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03533
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to
rejoin the military.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The RE code does not match his honorable discharge.
In support of his request, the applicant submitted a copy of his DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 January 1989.
On 3 February 1989, he received an Article 15 for false
representations that he engaged in homosexual acts prior to enlistment
when in fact he did not engage in such acts, in an attempt to procure
himself a separation from the Air Force.
He was charged with larceny of a wallet of a value of less than
$100.00 on or about 25 January 1990, the property of another airman;
larceny of $150.00 on or about 26 January 1990, the property of
another airman and larceny of $80.00 on or about 27 January 1990, the
property of another airman.
He pleaded guilty and a special court-martial convicted the applicant
of 3 specifications of larceny. He was sentenced to a bad conduct
discharge, confinement of four months, forfeiture of $200.00 pay per
month for four months and reduced to airman basic. On 26 November
1990, applicant was separated per Special Court-Martial Order Number
2, with a bad conduct discharge. He served 1 year, 1 month and 24
days total active service.
On 21 June 2000, the applicant submitted an application to the Air
Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) requesting his bad conduct
discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 15 July 2003, the DRB reviewed
the evidence of record and based on clemency directed the applicant’s
narrative reason for separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority”
and his character of service changed to honorable. (Exhibit B)
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Based upon the documentation in the
master personnel record, the discharge was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.
Applicant was involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge and
the reenlistment eligibility code 2C “Involuntarily separated with an
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without
characterization of service” is the correct code. He has provided no
facts warranting a change to his RE code.
The 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 on
10 Dec 04, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that relief is warranted. We note that as an act of
clemency the Air Force Discharge Review Board upgraded his discharge
to honorable and changed the narrative reason for separation to
secretarial authority. The Board also notes that the applicant plead
guilty to larceny charges, was convicted by a special court-martial
and was involuntarily separated. Based on the evidence of record, we
believe the RE code assigned to the applicant properly reflects his
involuntary discharge. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, 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 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 Docket Number BC-2004-
03533 in Executive Session on 13 January 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
Mr. Gary G. Sauner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Dec 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 04.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00232
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. After consulting with military counsel, he waived his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent upon his receipt of an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-00232 in Executive Session on 1 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01739
He receive a Presidential pardon removing his court-martial conviction and bad conduct discharge (BCD) from his record. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. As such, applicant's request for a Presidential pardon is not possible since such action is not within the purview of this Board's authority.
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-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-2003-03481
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03481 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to a code which will enable him to reenlist in another...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02763
On 23 September 1975 and 17 February 1982, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered the applicant’s request for discharge upgrade and concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change of his discharge and denied his request. On 27 January 1976, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the Air Force Correction of Military Records Board. DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-03260
On 19 Feb 03, the Wing Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally sufficient to justify an administrative discharge for failure to maintain dress and personal appearance or military deportment and recommended the applicant be separated with a general discharge, without probation or rehabilitation. On 27 Feb 04, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request to have his discharge upgraded. As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03636
The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was separated from the Air Force on 1 February 1985 by Special Court- Martial Order #1, dated 17 January 1985, with a BCD. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 14 February 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. It has been...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01344
On 15 May 1987, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and rebuts the charges brought against him at the time. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00719
On 26 June 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded. The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that more than half of the Letters of Counseling occurred over a period of more than four years, and all dealt with reporting late to duty. ...