Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03205
Original file (BC-2006-03205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03205
            INDEX CODE:  100.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 APRIL 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of  4A  (Separated  for  hardship  or
dependency reasons) be changed to a code that  will  allow  him  to  reenter
military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he enlisted in the Air Force it was his intent to  make  it  a  career.
He had to make a choice between his wife’s health and  the  Air  Force.   He
did not qualify for the Palace Chase or Place  Front  programs  and  thought
that requesting a discharge was his only option.  For the  past  two  years,
his wife has been off all medications except for the  treatment  of  asthma.
Had the physicians correctly treated his wife, he would not  have  requested
a discharge and would still be in the Air Force.  He has been working  as  a
civilian contractor for the US Army in Iraq.  This experience has proven  to
both him and his wife that should he be deployed,  they  would  be  able  to
handle the stresses that come with being deployed.

In support of his request, applicant provides a personal statement,  a  copy
of his spouse’s  statement,  doctor’s  statements  with  associated  medical
documents and a copy of his early separation request with his DD  Form  214.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  11  August  1999.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of senior  airman  having  assumed  that
grade effective and with a date of rank of 11 December  2001.   He  received
three Enlisted Performance Reports closing 15 January 2001, 15 January  2002
and 15 January 2003, in which the overall ratings were 5.

Applicant was honorably discharged on  31  October  2003,  after  serving  4
years, 2 months, and  20  days  on  active  duty.   An  RE  code  4A  and  a
separation code of KDB (Hardship) was assigned.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE finds no evidence that the applicant’s  RE  code  was  incorrect.
DPPAE states a  review  of  the  applicant’s  military  records  reveals  an
excellent history of duty performance.  The applicant’s  commander  reported
the applicant as an excellent performer who made  significant  contributions
to the unit.  DPPAE advises that if the Board decides to grant relief,  they
recommend the RE code be changed to reflect  “3K  (Secretarial  Authority).”
The DPPAE complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to the applicant on 17  November
2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 error or injustice that would warrant a change to his RE  code.
 We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  office  of
primary responsibility that the RE code which was assigned at  the  time  of
his separation accurately reflects his circumstances  at  the  time  of  his
separation and evidence has not been provided that would lead us to  believe
otherwise.  We considered his overall quality  of  service  and  the  events
which precipitated his  discharge  and  his  assertion  that  should  he  be
deployed; he and his wife would be able to handle  the  stresses  that  come
with deployment.  However, based on the available evidence of record and  in
the absence of evidence to show the record is in error, we do not  find  the
above consideration provides an adequate basis to change an  RE  code  which
was proper and correct at the time it was assigned.  In view of  the  above,
we  find  no  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-2006-03205
in Executive Session on 13 December 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. James W. Russell, III Panel Chair
            Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
            Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
03205 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 2 Nov 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 06.





                                   JAMES W. RUSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03205

    Original file (BC-2006-03205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Had the physicians correctly treated his wife, he would not have requested a discharge and would still be in the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE finds no evidence that the applicant’s RE code was incorrect. However, based on the available evidence of record and in the absence of evidence to show the record is in error, we do not find the above consideration provides an adequate basis to change an RE code...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02428

    Original file (BC-2005-02428.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02428 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 July 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4A be changed so that he can qualify for enlistment into the Regular Air Force. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01750

    Original file (BC-2002-01750.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available records, we found no evidence that the RE Code assigned at the time of the applicant’s separation was contrary to the governing regulation or unjust. At the time a member is separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE Code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation. The evidence of record supports the stated reasons for applicant’s separation and the corresponding RE code assigned in his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103151

    Original file (0103151.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03151 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he may reenlist in the military. Therefore, the commander felt that it would be in the best interest of the Air Force and the applicant that he separate from the service. On 25...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03288

    Original file (BC-2006-03288.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-02374

    Original file (BC-2006-02374.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant enlisted in Aug 85 and his HOR was listed at that time. ___________________________________________________________________ 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02296

    Original file (BC-2004-02296.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 30 May 2001, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s requests to change the narrative reason and authority for his separation and to change his RE code (Exhibit C). Applicant has not submitted evidence of any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge, nor provided facts warranting a change to the narrative reason for his separation or RE code. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02172

    Original file (BC-2006-02172.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    They also advise that upon applicant’s return to Beale AFB in January 2006, he, with the assistance of counsel, requested his squadron commander set aside the action. The AFPC/DPPPWB complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPAE states that the commander acted within his authority and the applicant accepted the Article 15, UCMJ punishment; however, they did not make a recommendation, pointing out that if the Board finds the punishment harsh or finds irregularities surrounding the case and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02729

    Original file (BC-2006-02729.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02729 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 MARCH 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge be changed to a disability discharge. He received an Honorable discharge, but he believes the Air Force should have done more to help him, “like a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00766

    Original file (BC-2006-00766.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00766 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 SEPTEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Airman Performance Reports (APRs) for the periods ending 29 September 1988 and 6 June 1988 be voided and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to...