Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00642
Original file (BC-2005-00642.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00642
            INDEX CODE:   112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 AUGUST 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3D be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

To the best of  her  knowledge  she  has  completed  all  enlistments,
including extensions that have been given to her without  any  service
breaks or interruptions of any kind.  She also was not told about  the
reentry code or any other code when given her DD Form  214.   She  was
asked to verify her personal information only which is correct.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of her DD Form 214,
copies of three  honorable  discharge  certificates,  a  copy  of  her
separation orders, a copy of her Permanent  Change  of  Station  (PCS)
orders, a copy of her latest extension  document  and  copies  of  her
airman/enlisted performance reports.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 March 1988.   Highest
grade held on  active  duty  was  staff  sergeant.   She  received  13
Airman/Enlisted Performance Reports for the combined rating  period  7
March 1989 through 30 November 1999, in which the overall  evaluations
were “9,” “4,” “5,” 4,” “5,” “5,” “4,” “5,” “5,” “5,”  “5,”  “5,”  and
“5.”

On 24 December 2000, applicant was honorably discharged by  reason  of
completion of required active  service,  after  serving  12  years,  9
months, and 17 days on active duty.  She received an RE code of  3D  -
Second-term or career airman who refused to get PCS or TDY  assignment
retainability.

The applicant is currently an active member of the Air  Force  Reserve
in the grade of technical sergeant, having been promoted to that grade
on 1 May 2003.  Her Effective Date of Initial Gain to Strength (EDIGS)
is 20 September 2001.  As of the Retirement Year Ending 2004, she  was
credited with 15 years, 9 months and 17 days of  satisfactory  Federal
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE states on 6 September 2000, the applicant signed and  dated
an AF Form 964, PCS, TDY or Training Declination Statement  for  CONUS
assignment  consideration.   She  also   specifically   initialed   “I
understand that my declination to obtain full retainability to fulfill
an Air Force requirement is incompatible with a career or continuing a
career in the Air Force.  I have read the rules in AFRs 35-16 and  39-
29  pertaining  to  loss  of  reenlistment  (including  extension   of
enlistment)  and  promotion  eligibility  for   airmen   who   decline
retainability.”   Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of  applicant’s
request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with her AF Form 964, PCS,  TDY  or
Training Declination Statement, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 April 2005, 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 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.  Evidence has not been  presented
that would lead us to believe the applicant’s RE code is erroneous  or
unjust.  The  evidence  indicates  the  applicant  was  ineligible  to
reenlist  based  on  her  official  written  declination   to   obtain
retainability for PCS assignment consideration.  By signing this form,
she signaled her understanding that  she  would  not  be  eligible  to
reenlist and there was no guarantee she would be able to enlist in the
Air Force under the prior service program  following  her  separation.
There is no indication in the available record that the applicant  was
miscounseled or coerced in any way to sign this  form.   We  note  the
applicant’s RE code is waiverable for the purposes of reentry  in  the
armed forces.  Whether a request for a waiver to permit her reentry is
approved, however, would be based on the needs of the service to which
she applies.  It appears she has exercised this option by applying and
being accepted for entry into the Air Force Reserve.  In view  of  the
above and absent  evidence  by  the  applicant  showing  her  RE  code
assigned at the time of her discharge from the  Regular  component  is
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation or  unjust,  we
are not inclined to favorably consider her request.

_________________________________________________________________

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, AFBCMR
docket No. BC-2005-00642, in Executive Session on 30 June 2005,  under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Feb 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 11 Apr 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 05.




                             LAURENCE M. GRONER
                             Panel Chair


                   AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION
                        OF MILITARY RECORDS

               CASE TRANSMITTAL / COORDINATION RECORD


IN THE MATTER OF:                                  DOCKET NO:

     JANETTE Y. CAMPBELL, 163-58-3024   BC-2005-00642

ROUTE IN TURN    INITIALS  DATE


1.  CHIEF EXAMINER           ________  ________
    (Coord/Signature)

2.  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR       ________  ________
    (Coordination)

3.  MR. LAURENCE M. GRONER        ________  ________
    PANEL CHAIR
    (Signature on Proceedings)

4.  AFBCMR (Processing)




      PHYLLIS L. SPENCE
      EXAMINER
      AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION
      OF MILITARY RECORDS


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00739

    Original file (BC-2005-00739.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00739 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 AUG 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to reenter military service. I have read the rules in Air Force Regulations (AFRs) 35-16 and 39-29 pertaining to loss of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00299

    Original file (BC-2005-00299.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is his intention to join the Air Force Reserves or Active Duty Air Force as an officer, however, he cannot do so with a RE code of 3D. On the back of this RIP, he initialed the statement, “I have read and understand the returnee counseling handout and DEROS options available to me.” Paragraph 4b of the returnee counseling handout specifically states, “If, by the 25th day of the 8th month prior to your DEROS, you are eligible to obtain retainability and take no action, the Military...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00574

    Original file (BC-2005-00574.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received orders nine months prior to his separation date and never had enough retainability for the assignment. According to information provided in the advisory prepared by the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility at Exhibit C, the applicant was notified of an assignment on 12 May 04 and on 29 Sep 04 voluntarily declined the assignment by signing AF Form 964, “PCS, TDY or Training Declination Statement.” The applicant was separated on 9 Jan 05 after completion of required active...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00469

    Original file (BC-2003-00469.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00469 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3D”, “Second term or career airman who refused to get PCS or TDY assignment retainability”, be changed to one that will allow him to reenlist in the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03677

    Original file (BC-2005-03677.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects the applicant failed to get retainability for PCS or TDY by the remarks code 80 which reflects the servicemember failed to get retainability for PCS or TDY. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 April 2006, for review and response. He was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900221

    Original file (9900221.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was told that by signing the form declining retraining he would still receive his promotion to staff sergeant but wouldn’t be able to test under future promotion cycles. During the involuntary retraining selection phase, personnel are allowed to submit available AFSC choices; however, the final decision is based on the needs of the Air Force as determined by the Headquarters Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC). As such, there was no error or injustice in applicant’s selection for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00741

    Original file (BC-2003-00741.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAAD indicated that AFI 36-2110, Paragraph 2.29.6.3, requires a member who refuses to get PCS retainability to sign an AF Form 964 (PCS, TDY, or Training Declination Statement). The applicant executed the AF Form 964 and the assignment was cancelled and his promotion line number was taken away. The applicant stated that his MPF failed to inform him that he would lose his promotion line number to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01747

    Original file (BC-2003-01747.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a 15 Nov 02 letter to the applicant, the Superintendent of the --rd Wing IG with the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) advised that, following an interview, the briefer denied having the conversation with the applicant and asserted she had briefed countless individuals regarding declination statements and was well aware of the ramifications. The handout directed him to the MPF for counsel if his desire was to separate. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002956

    Original file (0002956.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 18 July 2000, she was informed that AFPC/DPAAD2 approved her request to withdraw the PCS declination statement and that she would not be able to test out of cycle because her package was not submitted in time. The applicant states that she turned down an assignment but was approved to stay in and believes she would have been approved before the cut off date for testing if her package had not been lost and resubmitted. After the commander disapproved her package, the FSO received the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03872

    Original file (BC-2012-03872.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C and F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of his request for promotion reinstatement indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...