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
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01413
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
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
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
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
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
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...