RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00993
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 OCT 2008
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed; however,
it appears that his request is to have his reenlistment eligibility
(RE) code of 3D (second term or career airman who refused to get
PCS or TDY assignment retainability) changed to a code which will
enable him to reenlist in the Air National Guard (ANG).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He turned down an assignment prior to his separation in order to
remain near his children during his divorce. He wants to enlist in
the ANG and requests his code be changed so that he may serve his
country again. His youngest child is 21 years old and there are no
obligations that will impede his service.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 Aug 79. His
highest grade held was staff sergeant (E-5) with an effective date
and date of rank of 1 Mar 85.
He voluntarily submitted a request for separation for miscellaneous
reasons after turning down an assignment. On 24 Nov 87, the
discharge authority approved his request for voluntary early
separation.
On 8 Mar 88, applicant was honorably discharged under the
provisions of AFR 39-10, by reason of voluntary – miscellaneous
reasons, with an SPD of KND and was issued an RE code of 3D. He
was credited with 8 years, 6 months and 12 days of active duty
service.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial.
Based on documentation in the file, they found the discharge
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation. Additionally, the discharge was within the
sound discretion of the discharge authority. They also noted
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided
no other facts warranting a change to his separation code or
reenlistment eligibility code.
The HQ AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 20 Apr 07 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 an error or an injustice. Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that he
has been the victim of an error or injustice. At the time members
are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code
predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances
of their separation. Applicant’s RE code of 3D accurately reflects
that he was a second term or career airman who refused to get PCS
or TDY assignment retainability and given the circumstances
surrounding his separation, we believe the RE code issued was in
accordance with the governing directives. We note that the RE code
of “3D” is a waiverable code and suggest applicant contact his
local recruiter concerning his reaffiliation to the military.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary,
we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought
in this application.
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2007-00993 in Executive Session on 24 May 2007, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Apr 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Apr 07.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00299
It is his intention to join the Air Force Reserves or Active Duty Air Force as an officer, however, he cannot do so with a RE code of 3D. On the back of this RIP, he initialed the statement, “I have read and understand the returnee counseling handout and DEROS options available to me.” Paragraph 4b of the returnee counseling handout specifically states, “If, by the 25th day of the 8th month prior to your DEROS, you are eligible to obtain retainability and take no action, the Military...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00563
During that period there was no performance report, no credit for time in grade and no active duty assignment. On 1 Feb 79, he reenlisted in the Regular Air Force. The applicant contends that by making an exception to policy when he reenlisted in 1979, the Air Force "acknowledged there was no appropriate applicability" of the regulation that barred him from reenlistment in 1978.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03677
The Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects the applicant failed to get retainability for PCS or TDY by the remarks code 80 which reflects the servicemember failed to get retainability for PCS or TDY. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 April 2006, for review and response. He was...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00912
He had completed a total of 2 years, 3 months and 7 days of service at the time of his discharge from the Army National Guard. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that his pay date of 5 November 1982 must have been the date the Base CBPO was going on when he was told to attend a meeting on the SSB/VSI...
He had completed a total of 2 years, 3 months and 7 days of service at the time of his discharge from the Army National Guard. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that his pay date of 5 November 1982 must have been the date the Base CBPO was going on when he was told to attend a meeting on the SSB/VSI...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00676
Air Force Instruction 36-3202, Separation Documents, 20 May 94, states that item 11 of the DD Form 214 will reflect the primary AFSC code (PAFSC) and all additional AFSCs in which the member served for one year or more, during member’s continuous active military service, and for each AFSC, the title with years and months of service. The Separation Program Designation (SPD) code issued in conjunction with his 18 June 2004 release from active duty is correct; however, a majority of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01234
However, the recoupment of bonus monies is driven by the assigned SPD code. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. DFAS-POCC/DE recommends the applicant’s request to change his SPD code be denied. The applicant originally requested his RE code also be changed; however, AFPC/DPPRSP has administratively corrected his records to reflect he was issued RE code “1J.” Applicant’s contentions regarding the separation program designator (SPD) he was assigned at the time of his discharge are...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01022
On 21 Dec 01, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of misconduct, with service characterized as under honorable conditions (general). On 8 Apr 03, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable. White-Olson, Panel Chair Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007- 01022...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00808
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00808 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 SEPTEMBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C to 4C. On 23 Feb 07, applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation, by reason of “Personality Disorder,” and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01726
DPPRS notes the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his separation or RE code. DPPRS states a Records Transmittal Request on file indicates applicant submitted an Airman’s Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation; however, the request is not on file in the applicant’s master personnel records. At the time members are...