RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00686
INDEX CODE: 104.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 SEPTEMBER 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed so he may reenlist
in the Armed Forces.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He requested self-elimination from the Officer Training School (OTS)
because he was informed that no consideration would be given to
spousal geographical status. The separation would have been
detrimental to his marriage and impaired his ability to continue
training. At present, he is a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau
of Investigations. He has served in the military as a Marine and an
Army paratrooper. He can attest to having the ability to complete any
physical or mental training. He wants to reenlist in the military in
a Reserve capacity.
In support of his request, applicant provides a personal statement and
copies of his Army, Marine and Air Force DD Form 214s.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 May 2000 and
was enrolled in Officer Training School (OTS).
On 2 June 2000, the applicant initiated his self-initiated
elimination (SIE) request and acknowledged that he fully understood
the consequences of his request to SIE. On 17 June 2000, his
commander approved his request. The applicant was discharged on 19
June 2000 by reason of “Failure to Complete Commissioning or Warrant
Program” with a Reenlistment Eligibility
(RE) code of “4L” which denotes “Separated Commissioning Program
Eliminee.” He had served 24 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied. DPPAE advises that
the applicant has not provided evidence that he is barred from further
service. There was no evidence of error or injustice noted in the
applicant’s disenrollment and his self-initiated elimination was
voluntary and based on his personal reasons. The AFPC/DPPAE complete
evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
11 May 2007 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 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 that would warrant a change to his
RE code. Evidence has not been provided that would lead us to believe
the applicant’s discharge in 2000 was erroneous or unjust. When the
applicant decided to request a Self-initiated Elimination (SIE), he
fully understood the consequences of his decision to self eliminate.
After reviewing all the evidence provided, we are not persuaded the
applicant’s rights were violated or that he was treated differently
than any other Air Force members in the same situation. Accordingly,
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. We note the applicant’s
reenlistment eligibility code “4L” is a waiverable code and if he
wishes to reenter military service, his RE code can be waived depending
upon the needs of the service to which he applies. 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-2007-
00686 in Executive Session on 21 June 2007, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member
Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-
00686 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 28 Feb 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Mar 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRB, dated 11 May 07.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01477
In support of his appeal, applicant provided copies of certificates of completion for the CAP Officer Correspondence Program, the Aerospace Power Course and Squadron Leadership School; and a copy of the DD Form 214, Certification of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 1 Feb 01. 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. After reviewing the documentation...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-03630
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03630 INDEX CODE: 125.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be changed to show that his self-initiated elimination (SIE) from officer training school (OTS) be recharacterized to a form of disenrollment that would allow him to obtain a flying position with the Indiana Air National...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00369
As of this date, this office has received no response. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01930
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The initial auto-response from the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) was sent to an old e-mail address on 9 Jan 07. On 31 Jan 07, the applicant was notified by AFPC through e-mail of retraining options and requirements as well as provided contact numbers if there were any questions about his request. On 26 Jul 06, AFPC announced implementation of the FY07 NCORP and identified over 3,000 NCOs, by...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01504
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01504 INDEX CODE: 108.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 November 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code “3E” (second-term or career airman who refused to get retainability for training or retraining or declined to attend PME), be...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01959
On 2 Feb 07 at 7:47 a.m., the Air Force Contact Center (AFCC) advised the applicant that he met the qualifications for the requested AFSC, that he would receive a separate e-mail identifying the documents required to complete the application, and that the next step would be to submit the complete application. Contrary to his statement on the DD Form 149, that “I did not receive any further guidance from AFPC regarding retraining,” the applicant was sent two separate e-mails within three...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01836
JA recommends that no changes be made to the applicant’s record. AFOATS/JA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Regarding the “bounced” checks, the applicant states that he did not reveal them in his application to Officer Training School (OTS) because he did not know that that part of his financial history was an issue.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01520
He received a message by electronic mail (e-mail) from the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) stating he was eligible for two Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs). All vulnerable NCOs identified as vulnerable in Phase I were given until 15 Jan 07 to submit an initial request, followed by a suspense of 28 Feb 07 to submit a completed application. The applicant failed to complete his retraining application under Phases I and II of the program, although fully aware of the program requirements.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01769
All vulnerable NCOs identified as vulnerable in Phase I were given until 15 January 2007 to submit an initial request, followed by a suspense of 28 February 2007 to submit a completed application. On 31 January 2007, the Air Force Contact Center (AFCC) advised him that he met the qualifications for both AFSCs, and to submit his completed application along with all required documents. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02544
The applicant’s own supporting documentation states she received the NCORP program memorandum. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel states the DPPAE response added nothing of value and DPPAE elected not to address the Air Force’s uncontested failure to properly notify TSgt Hall in accordance with Phase II of the NCORP guidance. DPPAE’s position is that the applicant’s time in service, knowledge...