Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01766
Original file (BC-2008-01766.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01766
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reentry (RE) code "2X" (First-term, second-term or  career  airman
considered but not  selected  for  reenlistment  under  the  Selective
Reenlistment  Program)  and  separation  code  "JBK"  (Completion   of
required active service) be changed to allow  him  to  enlist  in  the
Reserves.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied reenlistment due to  a  one-time  incident  involving  a
night of alcohol and not reporting to work on time.

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 May 85, the applicant contracted his initial  enlistment  in  the
Regular Air Force.  He was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
sergeant having assumed the grade effective and with a date of rank of
7 May 88.

On 14 Apr 92, the applicant’s supervisor initiated an Air  Force  Form
418 and non-recommended him for  reenlistment.   On  25  Jun  92,  the
commander concurred with non-recommendation and denied  the  applicant
reenlistment.  On 29 Jun 92, he acknowledged his commander’s  decision
and submitted an appeal on 1  Jul  92.   On  26 June  92,  the  appeal
authority denied his appeal.

On 28 Nov 92, he was discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge.   He
served 7 years, 6 months and 20 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states commanders have  selective
reenlistment selection or non-selection authority.  SRP considers  the
service members Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings, unfavorable
information  from  any  substantiated  source,  the  service  member’s
willingness to comply with Air Force  standards  and  or  the  service
member’s ability or inability  to  meet  required  training  and  duty
performance levels.  DPSOA further states no  evidence  was  found  to
indicate an error or an injustice  occurred;  nor  did  the  applicant
submit any.  The  applicant  was  denied  reenlistment  based  on  his
supervisor’s recommendation and substantiated unfavorable information.

AFPC/DPSOA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states 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.  DPSOS further noted  that  the  denial  of  the
enlistment entitled the applicant to one-half separation pay.

AFPC/DPSOA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force  evaluations  and  requests  the
Board consider  his  first  term  performance  history  in  the  final
decision.  He admits he made many poor decisions, one was choosing  to
stay in a relationship with someone with  a  substance  abuse  problem
that he did not understand or had seen prior to being married.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden of proof  of  the  existence  of  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2008-01766 in Executive Session on 2 Oct 08 under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                       Mr. James G. Neighbors, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 08, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 May 08.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 22 Jul 08.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Aug 08.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, not dated.




                                        ALAN A. BLOMGREN
                                        Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01497

    Original file (BC-2008-01497.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 Oct 89, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for misconduct. He was discharged on 11 Oct 89. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of either...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01093

    Original file (BC-2009-01093.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01093 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Code (SC) of "LBK" (Completion of Required Service, and denied reenlistment with half separation pay) be changed. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01093

    Original file (BC 2009 01093.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01093 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Code (SC) of "LBK" (Completion of Required Service, and denied reenlistment with half separation pay) be changed. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01993

    Original file (BC-2008-01993.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 February 2007, the applicant's supervisor initiated an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, and non-recommended him for reenlistment. DPSOA found no evidence of error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03037

    Original file (BC-2011-03037.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03037 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code 2X “First-term, second term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)” be changed to allow reentry in the military. We took notice of the applicant's complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02862

    Original file (BC-2008-02862.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, the applicant provides expanded statements, documentation pertaining to his indebtedness, previous Board decisions, and other documents associated with the matter under review. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00707

    Original file (BC-2009-00707.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00707 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Article 15, nonjudicial punishment (NJP), and all actions associated with the punishment be removed; she be reinstated to active duty with her original date of rank; and her reentry (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to return to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03241

    Original file (BC-2011-03241.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He has provided no evidence of an Air Force error or injustice. Absent persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2011-03241 in Executive Session on 1 Dec 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: ,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00022

    Original file (BC-2011-00022.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He feels he should have been referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) prior to his non-selection for reenlistment. A complete copy of the DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibits D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 July 2011, for review and comment within 30 days. We note the applicant’s contention that he should have been considered by an MEB for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01217

    Original file (BC-2012-01217.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DOS rollback program utilizes the Separation Program Designation (SPD) codeJBK (less than 6 years of active service) with a correspondingnarrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required ActiveService” because the member is denied further continuation or reenlistment and as in the applicant’s case, the DOS/ExpirationTerm of Service may be involuntarily accelerated. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel record, the discharge to include thecharacterization of...