RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00937
INDEX CODE: 100.06
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 AUG 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He desires to reenlist in the service. He indicates he is a senior
business student at the University of Phoenix; he has never been in
trouble, and states he is an upstanding citizen.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 17 December 1992, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of airman basic.
On 27 May 1998, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following: he did, at or
near Misawa Air Base, Japan, on or about 15 November 1997 through on or
about 30 January 1998, wrongfully use anabolic steroid - Schedule III
controlled substances.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial by
court-martial, submitted a written presentation in his own behalf and
requested a personal appearance.
On 2 June 1998, the applicant was found guilty by his commander who imposed
the following punishment: reduction to the grade of airman first class from
senior airman, with a new date of rank of 2 June 1998 and 45 days of extra
duty. The execution of the punishment which provided for reduction in
grade was suspended until December 1998, after which time, it would have
been remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated.
The applicant did not appeal the punishment. The Article 15 was filed in
his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).
On 16 November 1998, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of
airman first class under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of
Required Active Service). He served 5 years and 11 months of total active
duty service. He received an RE code of 4H - serving suspended punishment
pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial indicating they conducted a review of the
applicant’s personnel record and there is nothing to support the change
requested.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He desires to enlist in the Air Force Reserves or National Guard. He
understands that he made a mistake and there is no excuse; however, he asks
the Board for forgiveness and consideration to reenlist. He is a senior
business student at Charleston Southern University and works as a unit
coordinator at Roper Hospital in Charleston, South Carolina. He further
indicates he is a very positive influence in his community and desires a
second chance.
Applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or an injustice. After reviewing the evidence of
record and the applicant’s submission, it is our opinion that given the
circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code
assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives. The
applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe
otherwise. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree
with the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rational
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without
a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-
00937 in Executive Session on 26 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 March 2005, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 June 2005.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 June 2005.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 June 2005.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01584
On 22 November 1989, his commander non-selected the applicant for reenlistment stating “his unwillingness to conform to the Air Force lifestyle makes him an unlikely candidate to remain in the Air Force.” The applicant was honorably discharged effective 7 December 1989, under the Early Separation Program – Strength Reduction, with an RE code of 2X (first- term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP). The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02314
At the time of his discharge on 16 December 2004, he was serving in the grade of airman first class (E-3), and had completed 5 years, 2 months, and 3 days of net active service. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 August 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Reginald P....
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01343
Accordingly, the Board majority believes that correction of her RE code to a waiverable code is warranted based on the merits of this case. Therefore, the board majority recommends that her records be corrected to the extent indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 25 June 2004, she was separated with a...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03389
DPPAE states the AF Form 3008, Supplement to Enlistment Agreement, reflects the applicant declined enrollment in ECLRP at the time of his enlistment. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 20 November 2002, he elected to participate in the program. NOVEL Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-03389 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00737
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00737 INDEX CODE: 128.14 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 SEPTEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to permit his participation in the College Loan Repayment Program (CLRP) and remain eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). If the Board grants the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00241 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: American Legion HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B to 3A so that he may pursue a career in the U. S. Army. The evidence of records supports the stated reasons for the applicant's ineligibility to reenlist and we are...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03288
DPPAE states the applicant’s records were reviewed along with statements she submitted, and based on the circumstances of her discharge find no evidence or injustice. Therefore, the RE code is correct and she has not submitted any evidence nor documentation from medical authorities that the condition no longer exists. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01336
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01336 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 Nov 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The recoupment action of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be terminated. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02887
Based on the circumstances of his discharge, they found no evidence or injustice; therefore, applicant’s RE code is correct. HQ AFPC/DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 Nov 06 for review and comment within 30 days. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01677
The Board noted that the Air Force Separations Branch was unable to determine the propriety of the separation. Nevertheless, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force Reenlistments office that the applicant’s request should be granted based on the governing directive in effect at the time of his separation. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.