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.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He wanted to get back into civilian life, but now he wants to reenter the
military.
Applicant’s complete submission, with an attachment, is attached at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 September 1996, as an
airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.
On 14 March 2001, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to pay
his Bank of America Government Visa. For this misconduct his punishment
consisted of forfeiture of $750.00 (suspended until 1 June 2001), 20 days
of extra duty and a reprimand.
On 22 January 2004, the applicant signed and dated an Air Force Form 964,
PCS (Permanent Change of Station) TDY (Temporary Duty) or Training
Declination Statement for assignment consideration to RAF Lakenheath UK,
which stated “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 Air Force
Regulations (AFRs) 35-16 and 39-29 pertaining to loss of reenlistment
(including extension of enlistment) and promotion eligibility for airman
who decline retainability.”
On 15 January 2005, the applicant was honorably released from active duty
with an RE code of “3D,” Second-term or career airman who refused to get
PCS or TDY assignment retainability. He served eight years, four months
and four days of active service.
On 29 April 2005, a DD Form 215 was issued to correct Item 23 on the DD
Form 214 to reflect the applicant was discharged and not released from
active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant fully understood the repercussion of
declining retainability for PCS, TDY or training. Therefore, they
recommend the requested relief be denied.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 May
2005, for review and response. 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. After careful consideration of the
circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that the reenlistment code
he received upon separation from active duty is in error or unjust.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion
and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error
or injustice. The applicant was released from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 with an RE code of 3D, which indicates he was a
second-term or career airman who refused to get PCS or TDY assignment
retainability. We note the applicant’s reenlistment code 3D is a
waiverable code and depending upon the needs of the service the applicant
may be allowed to reenlist. Therefore, in view of the above and in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in 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-2005-00739
in Executive Session on 16 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 Apr 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05.
MARTHA J. EVANS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03677
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00299
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-2005-00642
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. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00574
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
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...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-01234
However, the recoupment of bonus monies is driven by the assigned SPD code. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. DFAS-POCC/DE recommends the applicant’s request to change his SPD code be denied. The applicant originally requested his RE code also be changed; however, AFPC/DPPRSP has administratively corrected his records to reflect he was issued RE code “1J.” Applicant’s contentions regarding the separation program designator (SPD) he was assigned at the time of his discharge are...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00993
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00993 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 OCT 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed; however, it appears that his request is to have his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3D (second term or...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01504
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01504 INDEX CODE: 108.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 November 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code “3E” (second-term or career airman who refused to get retainability for training or retraining or declined to attend PME), be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02558
We note that, at the time the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) was announced for the applicant’s career field, she had planned to extend her enlistment rather than reenlist. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she was honorably discharged on 2 July 2003 rather than 31 July 2003 and reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on...