Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00416
Original file (BC-2006-00416.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00416
      INDEX CODE:  110.02
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  13 AUGUST 2007

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “4C“ be changed  to  a  waiverable
code that would allow him to reenter the Armed Forces.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was given an RE code that does not allow him to reenlist.  Both Navy  and
Naval Reserve recruiters have stated the RE code he  received  is  given  to
enlistees who were in trouble.  He  only  had  one  uncontrollable  migraine
headache while in service and has not had any over the past six months.   He
feels it is unjust and is keeping him from completing his goals.

In support of his  application,  he  submits  his  personal  statement.  The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 14 June  2005.   He  did  not  complete
basic military training (BMT).

In a medical narrative summary dated 12 July 2005,  the  applicant  was  not
recommended for enlistment because of fraudulent entry.   It  was  indicated
in the report that he  had  frequent  headaches  before  BMT,  often  missed
school/work and he did not inform the Military Entrance  Processing  Station
(MEPS).

On 18 July 2005, his commander notified him that he was recommending  he  be
separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI  36-
3208 for Erroneous Enlistment.   He  acknowledged  receipt  and  waived  his
right to consult counsel or  submit  statements  on  his  own  behalf.   The
Chief, Military  Justice  found  the  case  legally  sufficient  to  support
separation.

On 19 July 2005, the applicant was separated with an entry-level  separation
because he failed medical/physical procurement  standards.   A  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code of 4C (Separated for concealment of juvenile  records,
minority, failure to meet physical  standards  for  enlistment,  failure  to
attain a 90 reading grade  level  as  measured  by  the  Air  Force  Reading
Abilities Test (AFRAT), or void enlistments) was assigned.   He  had  served
one month and six days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

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 the discharge was within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.   DPPRS  affirms  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing, and did not provide any facts warranting a  change  to
his reenlistment eligibility code.  DPPRS  notes  airmen  are  given  entry-
level separation/uncharacterized service  characterization  when  separation
is initiated in the first  180  days  of  continuous  active  service.   The
Department of Defense determined if a member served less than  180  days  of
continuous active service it would be unfair to the member and  the  service
to  characterize  their  limited  service.   DPPRS  opines  the  applicant’s
uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance  with  DoD
and Air Force instructions.

The complete DPPRS 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  14
July 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  error  or  injustice.   Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we are not persuaded that he  has  been  the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  At the time members are separated from the  Air  Force,
they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of  their  service
and circumstances of their separation.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding  the
applicant’s separation, the RE  code  issued  was  in  accordance  with  the
appropriate  directives.   Therefore,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which   to
recommend favorable action on this application.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2006-00416  in
Executive Session on 25 August 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

               Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
               Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
               Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 06, w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Jun 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jul06.




      MICHAEL J. NOVEL
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03087

    Original file (BC-2005-03087.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03087 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 APRIL 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code “4C” be changed to allow him to reenter military service. On 23 August 1995, the MEB reviewed the clinical evidence and recommended...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00372

    Original file (BC-2006-00372.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00372 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 20 MAY 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service (uncharacterized), his reentry code (2C) and his narrative reason for separation (fraudulent entry) be changed and/or removed from his DD 214. He started having...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03386

    Original file (BC-2006-03386.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, 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. We, therefore, conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that his uncharacterized entry level separation be changed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02015

    Original file (BC-2006-02015.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Aug 2005, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was recommending he be separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208 for fraudulent entry. On 18 Aug 2005, the applicant was discharged under AFI 36-3208, Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, Drug Abuse, with an uncharacterized entry- level separation, and an RE code of 2C. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01130

    Original file (BC-2006-01130.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPPRS concludes the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, and did not provide any facts warranting a change to his reenlistment eligibility code. At...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01582

    Original file (BC-2005-01582.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 October 2004, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending the applicant be separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section 5C, Defective Enlistments, paragraph 5.15, for Fraudulent Entry. The application was timely filed. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005- 01582 in Executive Session on 10 January 2006, under...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC2007-02179

    Original file (BC2007-02179.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    It appears the specific reasons for this action was that she had back problems prior to entry on active duty but failed to disclose these problems until she was in BMT. In addition, SGPS states if the findings of the Board are in favor with the applicant, they can support her request to change her RE Code from “Fraudulent Entry” to "Not Medically Qualified.” The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial. The applicant was discharged from the Air Force for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01314

    Original file (BC-2004-01314.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On that same date, the discharge authority approved the entry-level separation with service uncharacterized. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPAE found that the RE code 4C, “separated - failure to meet physical standards for enlistment…,” is correct. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00808

    Original file (BC-2007-00808.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00808 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 SEPTEMBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C to 4C. On 23 Feb 07, applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation, by reason of “Personality Disorder,” and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02963

    Original file (BC-2006-02963.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was informed by his commander that there was no guarantee of the job he would receive, but he would most likely be assigned to Security Forces. On 19 Jul 05, he was academically eliminated from the Air Traffic Control course because he failed the Block II, Unit 9 test with a 52% score. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Oct 06.