RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00900
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 SEP 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code “4L” be changed to allow him to
reenter the Air Force (AF).
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 15 October 2003, he was honorably discharged from the Air Force Academy
for a pattern of misconduct and given an RE code of “4L”.
He attempted to serve by enrolling in AROTC at Kansas State University. He
served for a year in the program honorably, and without incident. His
detachment commander recommended he receive his commission. He submitted a
waiver for his reentry code and it was denied.
He offer no excuses for his misconduct at the academy, and believes his
disenrollment was a just punishment. However, he believes he should not be
made to suffer for the rest of his life because of some poor decisions he
made in his youth. He currently owes the government in excess of $166,000
dollars. He believes since he was honorably discharged and committed no
violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ), or any
violations of the honor code, he should be able to pay back what he owes
through honorable enlistment in the military. He wants a chance to do what
is right and to pay for the mistakes he made.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The following information was extracted from the applicant’s submission
(Exhibit A) and the Air Force evaluation (Exhibits B).
On 1 July 1999, the applicant took the oath of office and was admitted to
the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA).
On 14 November 2002, the applicant was recommended for disenrollment from
the Academy by a Military Review Committee (MRC) for excessive demerits and
aptitude deficiency.
On 26 January 2003, the applicant submitted a request to pursue an ROTC
commission.
On 5 February 2003, the Superintendent of the Academy reviewed the findings
and recommendation of the MRC and concurred with their recommendation for
disenrollment. The Superintendent further recommended the applicant be
called to active duty for a period of three years. He further stated that
he does not support the applicant’s request for an AFROTC commission.
HQ USAFA/JA informed the applicant that the Superintendent would recommend
to the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) that he be disenrolled from cadet
status, given a general discharge and transferred to enlisted active duty
for a period of three years.
The applicant was placed on involuntary excess leave and nonconcurred with
the recommendation of the Superintendent that he be called to active duty.
On 22 September 2003, the SAF directed the applicant reimburse the
Government for the cost ($122,050) of his Academy education.
On 15 October 2003, the applicant was honorably discharged under the
provisions of AFI 36-2020 for a pattern of misconduct with an RE code of
“4L” which denotes “Separated Commissioning Program Eliminee.”
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
10 AMDS/CC recommends the requested relief be denied. 10 AMDS/CC states
per a memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense dated 18 February
2004, directed Cadets and Midshipmen who eliminate from a service academy
must receive an RE code in block 27 of their DD Form 214. The Air Force
Academy (AFA) uses the RE code “4L”, which indicates the servicemember was
a “Separated Commissioning Program Eliminee.” In addition, all individuals
disenrolled from a service academy for any reason will have a DD Form 785,
Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate – Type Training, completed.
This form is used by military services to exchange information on the
individuals who were disenrolled from officer candidate training with an
evaluation for consideration for acceptance into future training.
10 AMDS/CC further states the indication that the applicant was received
the RE code “4L” due to his pattern of misconduct is incorrect. All cadets
disenrolling from Air Force Academy are given this RE code.
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 14
April 2006, 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 discharge was 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 disenrolled from the Air Force Academy due to conduct and
aptitude deficiency with an RE code of 4L, which indicates he was separated
due to being eliminated from commissioning program. The Under Secretary of
Defense directed that all cadets and midshipmen who are eliminated from a
service academy must receive an RE code. In accordance with AFI 36-2006,
Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, the code “4L” is used for
servicemembers who were eliminated the academy. We further note the
applicant’s reenlistment code 4L 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-2006-00900
in Executive Session on 24 May 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Feb 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, 10 AMDS/CC, dated 4 Apr 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03219
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03219 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 Apr 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry code be changed from 4L to a code that would allow him to continue his career in the US Air Force. Additionally, the Board also concluded the USAF Academy Cadet Sanctions...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03219
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03219 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 Apr 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry code be changed from 4L to a code that would allow him to continue his career in the US Air Force. Additionally, the Board also concluded the USAF Academy Cadet Sanctions...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02733
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During his time at the US Air Force Academy (USAFA), there were no adverse actions in his Cadet Personnel Record (CPR-II). He received an honorable discharge from the Air Force and was highly recommended for future officer training by both his Air Officer Commanding Officer and Group Commander when he left the USAFA. In addition, AFI 36-2012, Record of Disenrollment from Office Candidate Type...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04086
The members of the MRC recommended the applicant be disenrolled. This case has already been processed through the Secretary of the Air Force. Therefore, even though the USAFA might be able to conclude that her disenrollment did not violate Air Force regulations, the AFBCMR may override the previous decision to disenroll if the disenrollment is unjust.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03745
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ USAFA/DPY reviewed the application and stated, the member volunteered to leave; however, when a member is separated from a commissioning program the RE code 4L is used regardless of the underlying reasons behind the separation, as listed in AFI 36-2606. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01492
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01492 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAFA/A1A recommends denying the applicants request to change his RE code. The applicants attorney states the applicant did not have the right to counsel at his...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02117
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02117 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 27, Reentry Code be changed from 4L, which denotes Separated commissioning program eliminee (OTS, AECP, and so on) to a code suitable for reentry into the armed services...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04639
He believes he should have received an honorable discharge from the Academy due to his prior service and been allowed to complete his enlistment with ANG. The applicant received an honorable discharge from the ANG; however, his DD Form 214 only characterizes his service time as a basic cadet and not any previous service that he had already been separated. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02807
After review of the case, the Academy Superintendent (SUPT) forwarded the applicant’s case to the Academy Board. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. In a 15-page letter, with attachments, the applicant’s parents provided further response to the Air Force evaluation and comments on the applicant’s case. Based on further questions posed to the Academy IG, she was advised that from the time her son received 40 demerits (Apr 02) through the period of the IG...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02260
The following background information was extracted from the 27 Mar 97 USAFA Military Review Committee (MRC) Action Executive Summary and related attachments: As a 4th classman, the applicant was counseled in Mar 95 about an unprofessional relationship with a female 2nd classman. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The 10th Medical Group commander (10MDG/CC), USAFA, advised he did not have the applicant’s medical record from 1997 because...