RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03244
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 24 APRIL 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2P” (Separated under AFR 39-10
as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, Basic
Military Training (BMT) eliminees discharge due to erroneous enlistment,
concealment of civilian convictions, etc.) be changed to “2C” (separated
with other than honorable conditions).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His RE code of “2P” was a simple typo. He was not discharged because he
was absent without leave (AWOL). He was discharged because he thought
there was a problem at home with his mother. His RE code should be “2C” –
Involuntary Honorable Discharge.
In support of the application, the applicant submits a copy of his DD 214.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 Jun 80. On 15 Jul
80, he was referred to the Mental Hygiene Clinic where he was seen and
evaluated by a psychiatric counselor. The applicant was diagnosed with
significant depression and suicidal rumination and considered to be a
significant suicidal risk for continued BMT. His immediate separation was
recommended.
On 18 Jul 80, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 3,
para 3-18, for marginal performance. The applicant acknowledged receipt of
notification and declined to request retention in the Air Force. A legal
review by the Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally sufficient and an
honorable discharge was recommended. The discharge authority approved the
recommended separation and the applicant was honorably discharged on 21 Jul
80. He had served 22 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. 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. The discharge was within the discretion of
the discharge authority. Additionally, the applicant did not submit any
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing, and he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of her
discharge.
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 for
review and comment within 30 days on 1 Dec 06. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Additionally, we note HQ AFPC/DPPAE informed the applicant that he was not
discharged due to AWOL and provided him with a detailed explanation on the
provisions of his discharge. In view of the aforementioned, we find no
basis to grant the relief sought in this case.
________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-
03244 in Executive Session on 18 January 2007, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, 16 Nov 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 06.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00505
On 19 Oct 81, the discharge authority directed applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge. Although the applicant has requested that his separation code be changed to medical reasons or in the best interest of the Air Force, we found no evidence that his physical fitness to perform his duties at the time of his separation was questionable. We note that the BCMR Medical Consultant indicated that the evidence of record supports a change to the applicant’s separation document...
On 31 Jul 81, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Failed to Meet Physical Standards for Enlistment) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of airman basic with an RE code of 2P (Separated under AFR 39-10 as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, Basic Military Trainee (BMT) eliminees discharged due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions, and so forth) and a separation code of JFU (Failed to Meet...
The evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE states that they find no documentation to support the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2P, “Absent without leave (AWOL); deserter or dropped from rolls (DFR).” However, based on documentation and member’s narrative reason for separation “marginal performer” they recommend the applicant’s code be changed to 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” which they feel...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01087 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2P to a favorable code. Therefore, recommend his record be corrected accordingly. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00339
Under current provisions, AFI-36-2606, Reenlistment in the Air Force, a “2P” RE code is used to identify personnel “absent without leave; deserter or dropped from rolls.” However, there is no need to change her RE Code, because it was properly assessed under current provisions at the time. We note that the applicant was discharged from the Air Force for “marginal performance.” The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that she should have received an RE code that would allow her...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03038
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03038 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed. When the applicant was discharged he received an RE code of “2P” which at that time indicated the applicant was a marginal performer. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03728
However, RE code 2P did not have the meaning of AWOL at the time of his discharge. The applicants RE code is the correct RE code per the applicable guidance at that time. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility, and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00499
On 10 Jul 79, the Internal Medicine Clinic recommended the applicant be discharged for a medical condition that existed prior to entry into the service. In his request the applicant acknowledged that a medical board had determined that at the time of entry into military service he did not meet the minimum medical standards for enlistment into the Air Force. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02264 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an entry level separation without characterization of service) to “1B” [sic – There is no “1B” RE code. A complete copy of the evaluation is at...
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...