RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01020
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 SEP 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow entry into
the National Guard.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His RE code prevents him from enlisting in the National Guard.
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
20 March 1996, for a term of four years.
On 14 February 1997, the applicant was notified by his commander that
he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for failure in
Alcohol Treatment (refused to participate in the Substance Abuse
Reorientation and Treatment (SART) Program. The bases for the action
were that on 31 December 1996, he was evaluated by Mental Health
regarding his alcohol use and was diagnosed with alcohol dependence
uncomplicated withdrawal; on 9 January 1997, he entered into the SART
program and indicated he would not participate; on 23 January 1997, he
again refused treatment and on or about 24 February 1997, he failed to
report to his assigned duty section and received a Letter of
Reprimand.
He acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after
consulting with legal counsel submitted statements in his own behalf.
The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient to support separation and recommended he be discharged with
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and
rehabilitation (P&R). The discharge authority approved the discharge
and directed a honorable discharge without P&R.
On 7 April 1997, he was discharged, under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (alcohol rehabilitation
failure) with an honorable discharge. He received an RE code of 2C
“Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level
separation without characterization of service”. He served 1 year and
18 days total active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Based upon the documentation in the
file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation. The applicant did not
submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that
occurred in the discharge processing. He provided no facts warranting
a change to his under honorable conditions (general) discharge or his
RE code.
The 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 on 4
May 2007, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Applicant’s contentions are
duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant 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 circumstances of their
separation. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we
believe that given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s
separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the appropriate
directives. Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend
granting 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-
01020 in Executive Session on 20 June 2007, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memo, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Apr 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 07.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02923
On 14 September 1993, she was notified by her commander that she was being recommended for discharge due to failure in alcohol abuse rehabilitation. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that getting out of the Air Force was one of the biggest mistakes she has made. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02889
The applicant’s counsel states the only evidence of the applicant’s failure was his arrest on 4 September 1997 on the charge of pedestrian under the influence. In a letter, dated 7 October 1997, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate administrative discharge action against him for failure in the SART program. On 13 February 2001, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00046
On 6 Jul 96, he bounced a check in the amount of $40.00 for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) entry. On 7 Mar 97, the applicant was discharged because of a pattern of misconduct with a reentry code of 2B and a separation code of JKA. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Chair AFBCMR BC-2007-00046 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01729
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. 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 a change to his RE code. The complete DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01211
The initial DD Form 214 issued in conjunction with the applicant’s 15 Jul 91 separation reflected the narrative reason for separation as “Return from overseas within 30 days of expiration term of service,” with separation code “K14,” and RE Code 4D (Grade is senior airman and member has completed at least nine years of total active service and had not yet been selected for staff sergeant). At the time a member is separated from the Air Force, he/she is furnished an RE code predicated upon...
When it was time for him to go on terminal leave, he had one final team meeting to discuss his progress with his supervisor, counselor, first sergeant, commander, and the officer overseeing the SART program. After a thorough review of the available records, we found no evidence that the RE code assigned at the time of applicant’s separation was in error or contrary to the governing regulation. Accordingly, we recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00326
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00326 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 AUG 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed and he be reinstated in the Air Force to complete his enlistment. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01333
DPPRS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03768
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAC evaluated the applicant’s claim that he was assigned outside his career field for four years and should have been retrained. The applicant’s claim he should have been afforded the opportunity to retrain into another career field because he was performing duties outside his primary AFSC for four years is also without merit. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00321
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 general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation, and we find no evidence to indicate his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant...