AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00357
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without
characterization of service) be changed to a code that would
allow him to reenlist.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He does not believe the RE code to be in error; however, it does
deny him reenlistment into the Air Force.
In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides documents
extracted from his military personnel records, and a Southwest
Florida Public Service Academy training transcript, state officer
examination test results and a certificate of completion (basic
law enforcement class).
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 October
2001.
On 12 June 2003, the applicant was notified by his commander of
his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force
under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208. The specific
reasons are as follows:
a. On or about 17 October 2002, the applicant failed his
first Career Development Course (CDC) exam.
b. On or about 16 January 2003, the applicant failed his
second CDC exam.
He was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting
with counsel he elected to submit statements on his own behalf.
In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate
found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The
discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and
directed an honorable discharge. The applicant was discharged on
10 July 2003. He served 1 year, 9 months and 7 days on active
duty.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, was unable to
identify with an arrest record based on the information
furnished.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the RE code 2C is
required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, chapter 3,
based on his involuntary discharge with honorable character of
service. The applicant does not provide proof of an error or
injustice in reference to his RE code; the applicant states “I
personally do not believe the record to be an error but the
reentry code denies my reentry back into the U.S. Air Force.”
RE code 2C is the appropriate RE code.
The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 26 March 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days
(Exhibit E). 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. After a
thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that
given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air
2
Force, the RE code assigned was proper and in compliance with the
appropriate instructions. In addition, the applicant has not
provided any evidence which would lead us to believe that a
change to his RE code to allow him to reenlist is warranted.
Therefore, we agree with the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error
or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2012-00357 in Executive Session on 30 August 2012,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-00357 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 January 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 19 March 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 March 2012.
3
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01119
The applicant concurred with his supervisor’s recommendation and stated that he would rather separate from the Air Force instead of retraining. On 16 Jan 09, the applicant received a referral enlisted performance report (EPR), for violations of Article 86, UCMJ, failing to report to duty at the prescribed time and twice failing his CDC EOC exam. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2012-01119 in...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00168
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00168 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry code (RE code) be changed from 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) to a code that will allow him to reenter the Air Force. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02040
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02040 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code 2C, which denotes "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service," be changed to an RE code of 1 to allow reentry in the military. On 15 Sep...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04032
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04032 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1) His reentry code (RE) 2C (involuntary separation with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00555
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00555 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. When the discharge authority approved the applicant’s involuntary discharge with honorable character of service, her RE Code should have been changed to “2C” Involuntarily Separated with an Honorable Discharge or Entry Level Separation Without...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00881
They found no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the applicant's discharge action. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial of the applicants request for reinstatement and service credit, noting the applicant was involuntarily discharged with 1 year, 5 months, and 11 days of active service, after being diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder. The complete AF/A1DLV evaluation is at Exhibit F. AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02884
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02884 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2C Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service, be changed to allow him to reenter the military. After the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate found the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01562
On 29 Jan 91, his commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance. On 1 Feb 91, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. AFPC/DPSOS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02467
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02467 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to a code that would allow her to reenlist. The application was timely filed. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02948
The applicant states he wants back in the military and that his test was unfair, but does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. 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. ...