RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04692
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reentry (RE) code of 6U (Not Selected for Retention by
Commander) be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His RE code is in error. The authority and reason for discharge
reflects Expiration of Enlistment and his RE code means the
unit did not retain him. It has made joining the Army or
reenlisting in the Air Force impossible. He served honorably and
desires to reenlist.
In support of the applicants appeal, he provides a copy of NGB
Form 22, Report of Separation/Discharge and Record of Service.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard (ANG) on
6 January 2005.
On 5 July 2008, the applicant was honorably discharged in the
grade of technical sergeant under the provisions of AFI 36-3209,
Expiration of Enlistment. He was credited with 11 years and
4 days of total service for pay.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1POE recommends denial. A1POE states they contacted the
Force Support Squadron at the 107th Airlift Wing and validated
that the applicant was not selected for retention by the
Commander and RE code 6U is the correct code as intended by the
Commander. RE code 6U is an Air Force sanctioned and recognized
code and is found in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS).
This code only applies to the Air National Guard and is used when
a member is not selected for further retention in accordance with
ANG 36-2002. This is not a derogatory code. So should he desire
to enlist with another ANG unit, it will not be a barrier to his
enlistment. Since it is neither A1POEs desire nor function to
second guess a unit commander, they find no injustice in this
case.
The A1POE complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
NGB/A1PS concurs with the A1POE and does not recommend the
requested relief.
The A1PS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 10 February 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days
(Exhibit D). 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 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 an error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicants 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 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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-2011-04692 in Executive Session on 19 June 2012, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2011-04692 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 November 2011, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 20 January 2012.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 1 February 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 February 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05966
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05966 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code on his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed from 6U (Air National Guard (ANG) Not Selected for Retention by the Commander) to 6A (ANG Eligible to Reenlist/Extend Selected by...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02988
His Separation Program Designator (SPD) of JBK (completion of required active service denied reenlistment one half separation pay) on his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, be changed to LBK, (completion of required active service denied reenlistment one half separation pay). The applicant provided additional statements and documentation to substantiate that he was not recommended for reenlistment in accordance with the governing directives; was not given feedback properly;...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03451
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends his NGB Form 22 be changed to reflect a medical separation and denial of a change to the RE code. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant/counsel on 18 Nov 11 for review and...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04827
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04827 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 6H, which denotes Pending Discharge in accordance with ANGR 39-10 Involuntary (ANG Only), be removed from his records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04184
A1POE states, in accordance with the applicants point credit summary, he did not participate in enough UTA days from his initial enlistment date of 20 Sep 2008 to the date of the erroneous discharge, on 1 Aug 2010. ________________________________________________________________ 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;...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04167
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04167 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. As such, the applicant was erroneously separated from the Air National Guard and incurred a debt for his reenlistment bonus. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was a member of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04257
The A1PS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 23 March 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. The applicants contentions are duly noted; however, after reviewing the evidence of record,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03610
This time enclosed was a NGB 22, stating that he was discharged with 5 years and 11 days of service and that he was eligible for reenlistment into the Armed Forces. After reviewing the applicants discharge notification package, dated 22 Mar 06, it was validated that the member was recommended for discharge for failing to maintain contact with the unit to schedule a date to attend BMT or attend Unit Training Assembly (UTA) weekends, which constituted substandard performance on the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04325
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04325 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Date of Rank (DOR), of his promotion to Major, O-4, be changed from 13 October 2012, to 2 March 2012. He subsequently met another promotion board on 13 October 2013. He was selected and processed for promotion on a later list and was promoted...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03031
JA states that based on the facts presented in the NGB opinions, JA finds their responses to be legally sufficient and concurs with the recommendations to deny the applicant's requests for corrective action related to ACP payments, Board# V0611A, AGR separation from ANG Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) consideration, and TERA. Counsels complete response is at Exhibit N. _______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF...