Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02067
Original file (BC-2007-02067.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02067
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  2 JANUARY 2009

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2X” be changed.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was a single parent at the time of her separation.  She  was  not  given
any explanation for the RE code given and was unaware  of  its  implication.
She is currently in the process of enlisting in the Oklahoma  Army  National
Guard.  There were no disciplinary actions against her at the  time  of  her
separation.

In support of her request, applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 March 1991, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  for  a
period of four years.  During this period of service, she was  progressively
promoted to airman first class (E-3).

From 28 November 1991 to 2 December 1991, she was charged with being  absent
without leave.  On 18 December  1991,  nonjudicial  punishment  was  imposed
upon the applicant under  Article  15,  of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ), reducing the applicant to the grade of airman basic.

On 29 April 1994, applicant’s supervisor prepared an AF Form 418,  Selective
Reenlistment/Noncommissioned  Officer  Status  Consideration,  and  did  not
recommend her for reenlistment  based  on  documented  deficiencies  in  her
performance  and  acceptance  of  responsibility.   On  2  May   1994,   the
applicant’s commander concurred with the  recommendation  and  rendered  her
ineligible for reenlistment.

Applicant was honorably discharged on 17 March 1995, after serving  4  years
on active duty.  An  RE  code  2X  (First-term  airman  considered  but  not
selected for reenlistment under the SRP) was assigned.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied.   DPPAE  advises  that  the
applicant’s commander  did  not  recommend  her  for  reenlistment  and  the
applicant opted  not  to  appeal  the  commanders  decision.   No  error  or
injustice  is  present  to  support  the  change  request.   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  10
August 2007, for review and response 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice that would warrant a change to her RE  code.
  We  agree  with  the  opinion  of  the  Air  Force   office   of   primary
responsibility that the RE code which  was  assigned  at  the  time  of  her
separation accurately  reflects  the  circumstance  of  her  separation  and
evidence has not been provided that would lead us to believe otherwise.   In
the absence of evidence to indicate that the information  contained  in  her
records  is  erroneous  or  that  her  commander  abused  his  discretionary
authority, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in  this
application.  However, should the applicant provide evidence  pertaining  to
her  post  service  activities,  testimonials  of  friends  and  responsible
citizens who know her, she may, of course, submit a request for a change  of
her RE code based on clemency at a later time.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2007-02067
in Executive Session on 12 September 2007, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Michael J. 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 Jun 07, w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 25 Jul 07.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Aug 07.





                                  MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                  Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01343

    Original file (BC-2007-01343.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Accordingly, the Board majority believes that correction of her RE code to a waiverable code is warranted based on the merits of this case. Therefore, the board majority recommends that her records be corrected to the extent indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 25 June 2004, she was separated with a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-00561

    Original file (BC-2006-00561.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 4 Oct 05, the applicant’s commander notified her via an AF Form 286A, “Notification of Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program Permanent Decertification/Disqualification Action,” he was concurring with the recommendation of the medical authority to permanently decertify her from the PRP. Air Force Form 418, dated 29 Sep 04, which indicates she was selected for reenlistment just 13 months prior to the AF Form 418 dated 28 Oct 05 denying her reenlistment. After reviewing the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03288

    Original file (BC-2006-03288.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPAE states the applicant’s records were reviewed along with statements she submitted, and based on the circumstances of her discharge find no evidence or injustice. Therefore, the RE code is correct and she has not submitted any evidence nor documentation from medical authorities that the condition no longer exists. The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02646

    Original file (BC-2004-02646.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was an asset to the Air Force when she was on active duty. They conducted a review of the applicant’s personnel file and considered all documentation submitted by the applicant. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that she really wants to be able...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02314

    Original file (BC-2007-02314.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    At the time of his discharge on 16 December 2004, he was serving in the grade of airman first class (E-3), and had completed 5 years, 2 months, and 3 days of net active service. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 August 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Reginald P....

  • 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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02544

    Original file (BC-2007-02544.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01298

    Original file (BC-2007-01298.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01298 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 NOV 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2C” be changed. On 4 May 92, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Unsatisfactory Performance) in the grade...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03605

    Original file (BC-2002-03605.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03605 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X (First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP) be changed. Applicant’s record does not contain a discharge case file or the commander’s...