Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00830
Original file (BC-2007-00830.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00830
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL: NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 SEP 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code   be   changed   to   allow
reenlistment.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not aware of the reasoning for the RE code, but believes it may
be related to alcohol incidents.  However, he  has  matured  immensely
and would like another opportunity to serve his country.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a  copy  of  DD  Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
22 August 2000,  and  was  discharged  on  21  August  2006,  with  an
honorable character of  service  for  completion  of  required  active
service, after serving six years of service.

He received an RE code  of  2X  ”First-term,  second-term,  or  career
airman  considered  but  not  selected  for  reenlistment  under   the
Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP).”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE states  the  applicant’s  records
are lost and not available for review to determine the appropriateness
of the RE code.  DPPAE also states there is no evidence to support  or
reject the RE code of 2X because attempts to retrieve his records were
not successful.  The Board may determine the records  are  correct  as
written, unless the applicant can provide  additional  information  to
disprove the validity or the RE code.

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s mother submitted additional documents on  his  behalf,
and states it would be very beneficial to the Air Force to change  his
RE code and allow him to reenlist.

The complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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  to  warrant  changing  his  RE
code.  Based upon the presumption of  regularity  in  the  conduct  of
governmental affairs and without evidence to  the  contrary,  we  must
assume the applicant's discharge was proper  and  in  compliance  with
appropriate  instructions.   However,  should  he  provide  supporting
documentation  concerning  his  discharge  contrary  to  the   Board’s
decision, we would be willing to reconsider his  request.   Therefore,
based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which
to favorably consider this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
00830 in Executive Session on 24 July 2007, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member
                 Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C  Memo, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 31 May 07.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 07.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Mother, dated 25 Jun 07, w/atchs.




      PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
      Vice Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00507

    Original file (BC-2007-00507.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00507 INDEX CODE: 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 SEP 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment code (RE) of 2 be change to an RE1. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. The applicant was separated with over three years of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00369

    Original file (BC-2007-00369.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2007-02067

    Original file (BC-2007-02067.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 18 March 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years. An RE code 2X (First-term airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP) was assigned. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007- 02067 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02084

    Original file (BC-2007-02084.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02084 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 JANUARY 2009 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) (1OLC) be included in the CY06C Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) Officer Selection Record (OSR) that will be meeting a Special...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01569

    Original file (BC-2007-01569.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant believes with all of the support documentation in his case, he is a very valuable asset to the Air Force In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement; extracts from his military personnel record, including copies of his performance reports and AF IMT 418s, along with several letters of character reference. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Applicant’s commander concurred and denied his reenlistment.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01435

    Original file (BC-2007-01435.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He understands his HOR is where he enlisted; however, this is not his home and he would like to correct this error. At the time of his initial enlistment of 27 Oct 99, his home of record was listed as Portales, New Mexico. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01637

    Original file (BC-2005-01637.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    They conducted a review of the personnel record and found nothing to support the change requested. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 24 Jun 05 for review and comment within 30 days. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01208

    Original file (BC-2007-01208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 21 November 1991 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant. As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01860

    Original file (BC-2007-01860.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01860 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Dec 15, 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment code of “2C” (involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10 with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service) be changed or removed. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01413

    Original file (BC-2007-01413.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A review of her EPR’s reflects that her promotion recommendation during two performance reporting periods was 2 – “Not recommended for promotion at this time” and a third EPR of 3 – “Consider.” On 22 December 1993, her commander concurred with the non-recommendation of her supervisor and denied her reenlistment. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...