Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03934
Original file (BC-2005-03934.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

+RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03934
      INDEX CODE:  110.02
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  31 MAY 2007

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed  to  a  code  which  would
allow him to enter any branch of service.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was 19 years old when he made the decision to accept  the  RE  code.   He
has matured and  understands  life’s  responsibilities.   He  has  seen  the
advantages of the armed forces and would like to serve  and  retire  with  a
good record.  He is asking for a second chance in the armed services.

In support of his request,  applicant  submits  a  copy  of  his  separation
document.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 September 1989  at  the
age of 18.  He is currently 35 years of age.

On 28 August 1990, he received an Article 15 (suspended) for wrongfully  and
falsely altering his military identification card and giving said card to  a
civilian.

On 10 October 1990, he received two  Letters  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for  the
following offenses:

      a.  Failing to inform his squadron commander of a scheduled court date
that was given him after being cited for being  a  Minor  in  Possession  of
Alcohol on 30 September 1990.

      b.  Failing to go to an appointment  to  retake  his  CDC  test  on  9
October 1990.

On 12 October 1990 his previously suspended punishment on an Article 15  was
vacated because he was late to work.  For this offense  he  was  reduced  in
rank to airman basic.

On 18 October 1990, the applicant was notified by his commander that he  was
recommending he be separated from the Air Force under the provisions of  AFR
39-10 because of misconduct.  The  applicant  was  advised  of  his  rights,
acknowledged receipt of the  notification  and,  after  consulting  military
legal counsel, waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

In a legal review of the discharge case  file  dated  23 October  1990,  the
Chief, Military  Justice  approved  the  commander’s  recommendation  for  a
general discharge without the offer of probation  and  rehabilitation.   The
discharge authority approved and directed the applicant be issued a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 29 October 1990, the applicant was discharged with a reentry code  of  2B
and a separation code of JKN.  Reentry code 2B is  applied  in  those  cases
where the member is involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10, with a  general
or under-other-than-honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  The  separation
code is directly related to the reason and  authority  for  his  separation.
He had served 1 year, 1 month and 23 days on active duty.

In response to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated they  were  unable  to
identify with an arrest record pertaining to the applicant on the  basis  of
information furnished (Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   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, and within the discretion of the discharge  authority.
 DPPRS concludes the applicant did not submit any evidence or  identify  any
errors or  injustices  that  occurred  during  the  discharge  process,  and
provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service.

DPPRS’s 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  20
January 2006 for review and comment.  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 probable error or injustice.  After  careful  consideration  of
the available evidence, we found no indication that  the  actions  taken  to
effect his discharge were improper or contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the
governing regulations in effect at the  time,  or  that  the  actions  taken
against the applicant were based on factors other than his  own  misconduct.
We are unable to  conclude  corrective  action  is  warranted  based  on  an
injustice; therefore, we believe that given  the  circumstances  surrounding
the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in  accordance  with  the
appropriate  directive.   Absent  evidence  by  the  applicant  showing  the
contrary, we find no basis to favorably consider his request.
________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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  AFBCMR  BC-2005-03934  in
Executive Session on 8 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Member
                 Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Dec 05 w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Jan 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jan 06



            WAYNE R. GRACIE
            Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000152

    Original file (0000152.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The recommendation for discharge for misconduct was approved and the commander directed that applicant be given an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. On 23 Dec 83, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39- 10 (Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) in the grade of airman first class with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge and an RE code of 2B (Separated with other than an honorable discharge). Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01192

    Original file (BC-2007-01192.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01192 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 OCT 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B (involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable condition (UOTHC) discharge) be changed. On 1 Feb...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00299

    Original file (BC-2006-00299.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board recommended he be discharged because of unsatisfactory duty performance with a general discharge without rehabilitation. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting upgrading the applicant’s discharge. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00655

    Original file (BC-2006-00655.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was discharged on 15 April 1968 with 3 years, 8 months and 19 days of active duty service. As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00138

    Original file (BC-2006-00138.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00138 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 16 JULY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C.,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01297

    Original file (BC-2007-01297.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, they did find based upon the record, applicant’s testimony, evidence provided by the applicant, that his reason for discharge was inequitable and directed his reason for separation be changed to “Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions.” They further concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03060

    Original file (BC-2002-03060.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS stated that the applicant’s personnel records did not include any information as to why he received a general discharge versus an honorable discharge. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E). WAYNE R. GRACIE Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-03060 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03060

    Original file (BC-2002-03060.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS stated that the applicant’s personnel records did not include any information as to why he received a general discharge versus an honorable discharge. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E). WAYNE R. GRACIE Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-03060 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00295

    Original file (BC-2006-00295.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPRS states that based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and she provided no facts warranting an upgrade of her discharge. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Feb 06.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03437

    Original file (BC-2005-03437.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 August 1981, the applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting to have his under honorable conditions (general) discharge upgraded to honorable and to change his reenlistment code (RE). AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPAC recommends the applicant’s request for correction of Item 11 on his DD Form 214 be denied. Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release...