RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03053
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reentry (RE) code of 2B (Separated with a general or under-
other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge) be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes that he should be allowed to reenlist with a waiver.
He has matured and wishes to rejoin the military. The decisions
he made when he was young should not be held against him for the
rest of his life.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, and documents to his congressman.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 2 Jul 03.
The applicant was notified by his commander that he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the
provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49. The
specific reasons for this action were: failing his dormitory
inspection; pleading guilty in municipal court to possession of
alcohol and not having a current registration (his blood alcohol
content of .076 concluded he was drinking and driving under age);
being cited for not having auto insurance; failing to report for
duty; failing to obey a lawful order by operating a motorcycle.
He received several Letters of Reprimand (LORs). After a legal
review, the applicants case was found legally sufficient. The
applicant received a general discharge on 30 May 06 after serving
2 years, 10 months, and 28 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. The applicants misconduct in this
case clearly outweighs the positive aspects of his service.
Additionally, according to the governing instructions a general
discharge is appropriate when significant negative aspects of
the airmans military record. Therefore, based on the
documentation in his master personnel records, the discharge to
include his narrative reason for separation was consistent with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge
instruction and was within the discharge authoritys discretion.
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. Based on the applicants
involuntary general discharge, the 2B RE code is required per
AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF. The applicant does not
provide any proof of an error or injustice with regard to his RE
code.
The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the
applicant on 23 Dec 11 for review and comment 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 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 opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2011-03053 in Executive Session on 6 March 2012, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 10 [sic], w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 Oct 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 16 Nov 11.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03053
On 30 Aug 82, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable conditions discharge. The AFDRB reviewed all the evidence of record and concluded that there was no basis for upgrade of the discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00341
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 EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that based on documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation, was appropriately administered and within the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03053
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03053 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service), her narrative reason for separation of Personality Disorder, and her separation code of JFX.,...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00628
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00628 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), requesting his general discharge be upgraded and his RE code be changed. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01497
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-01317
DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include his characterization of service and RE code, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00703
As a result, on 6 Sep 01, she was convicted by court martial for wrongful use of marijuana and wrongful introduction of marijuana onto base with the intent to distribute. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03703
The applicant was discharged on 22 May 92 with a general discharge and a reenlistment code of 2B. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 Feb 08 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00136
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00136 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1) Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 3 May 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge and directed she be separated from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge,...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02498
On 25 May 00, applicant appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and his RE code be changed to allow his return to military service. The Board found that neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiated an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge or an upgrade of his RE code. The Board further concluded that no legal or equitable basis exists for an upgrade of...