Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00814
Original file (BC-2005-00814.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00814
            INDEX CODE:  112.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 SEPTEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to a 1 or a 3.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was only discharged for marijuana.  He feels he deserves  a  second
chance at joining the Navy.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form  214
and a copy of his positive drug testing form.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 February 2002 for  a
period of six years.

On 15 March 2002, applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent  entry.   The
basis  for  the  commander’s   recommendation   was   that   applicant
intentionally concealed prior service drug usage which,  if  revealed,
could have resulted in rejection of his enlistment.  Specifically,  on
16 November 2001, applicant  executed  an  AF  Form  2030,  USAF  Drug
Certificate and indicated that he had never used or experimented  with
marijuana and never used or possessed any illegal  drug  or  narcotic.
Then on 26 February 2002, he certified that he had not used any  drug,
including marijuana since he originally completed  this  form.   On  2
March 2002, he submitted a urine sample to be tested for  presence  of
drugs.  On 8 March 2002, his specimen was determined  to  be  positive
for the marijuana.  The commander stated that, had the Air Force known
of his  pre-service  drug  involvement  it  would  have  rendered  him
ineligible to enlist.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
waived his rights to military legal counsel and to  submit  statements
in his own behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the case  file  and
found it legally sufficient to support the discharge  and  recommended
applicant  be   discharged   with   an   uncharacterized   entry-level
separation.  The  discharge  authority  approved  the  separation  and
directed that applicant be discharged with an  uncharacterized  entry-
level separation.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 25 March 2002 under  the
provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of   Airmen
(fraudulent  entry  into  military  service/drug   abuse),   with   an
uncharacterized entry-level  separation.   Since  his  enlistment  was
considered fraudulent, his total active  service  was  non-creditable.
He was assigned a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C.   RE  code
2C indicates involuntarily separated 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 at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 1 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 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 his involuntary  discharge  for  fraudulent  entry  into  the
service.  The  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence  indicating  the
information in his discharge  file  was  erroneous,  his  rights  were
violated, or his  commanders  abused  their  discretionary  authority.
While the applicant may believe the fact that his  RE  code  bars  his
reentry into the service is unfair, his  belief  does  not  provide  a
sufficient  basis  to  warrant  approval  of  the  requested   relief.
Accordingly, in the absence of  evidence  showing  his  discharge  was
erroneous or unjust, we  find  no  basis  to  favorably  consider  his
request for a change to his RE code.

_________________________________________________________________

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,  BC-
2005-00814, in Executive Session on 22 June 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Mar 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.




                             FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03479

    Original file (BC-2002-03479.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    They were throwing beer bottles out of the car window into a trash can and a bottle went through a hotel window. After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02041

    Original file (BC-2003-02041.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On or about 26 July 2000, he changed his response to this question to a “yes” on his security questionnaire. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this case and recommended denial. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the RE code issued at the time of separation was accurate.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02563

    Original file (BC-2005-02563.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02563 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 FEB 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to allow him to reenlist in military service. As a result, of the positive drug test, the applicant was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01037

    Original file (BC-2003-01037.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that airmen are given entry- level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that the applicant's discharge and the reenlistment code he received...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01712

    Original file (BC-2004-01712.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 March 2002, applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent entry. 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 an upgrade in his character of service or a change to his reenlistment eligibility code. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02794

    Original file (BC-2003-02794.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 4 February 2004, a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty was issued to the applicant changing the narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends changing the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, but denial of the RE code change request. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01584

    Original file (BC-2005-01584.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 Nov 04, applicant certified she had not used any drug, including marijuana, since she originally completed the AF Form 2030. The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed that applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized entry-level separation. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2005- 01584 in Executive Session on 3 August 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03339

    Original file (BC-2002-03339.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03339 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. Applicant was separated on 17 October 1996, in the grade of airman with an uncharacterized discharge, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Fraudulent Entry Into Military...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00437

    Original file (BC-2003-00437.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00437 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2C” be changed to allow his enlistment into either the Army or Air Force. On 19 June 1998, he received an uncharacterized entry-level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Fraudulent Entry into...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02878

    Original file (BC-2002-02878.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was separated from the Air Force on 15 July 2002. However, after reviewing the applicant’s request and the evidence of record, we find the narrative reason for his entry- level separation; i.e., entry-level performance and conduct, to be overly harsh. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-02326 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title...