RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00106
		INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code does not correctly reflect the decorations and awards she received as indicated on section 13 of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  Nor does it reflect the ratings on her Airman Performance Reports (APRs).  She filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint against SMSgt	  because of unfair treatment, which determined that he had her kicked out of the military.  

In support of her request, applicant provided a copy of her DD Form 214.  Her complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 Jan 84.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 30 Nov 86.  On 30 Nov 87, she was subsequently appointed to noncommissioned officer (NCO) status.  On 28 Jun 90, applicant's supervisor prepared an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration, recommending vacation of her NCO status and that she not be selected for reenlistment.  The specific reasons for his action were her inability or unwillingness to fulfill her responsibilities as an NCO; repeated dereliction in performance of her duties; her negative attitude towards her responsibilities; and, her unwillingness to take the necessary actions to correct the situation.  On 29 Jun 90, applicant's commander concurred with the recommendation and vacated her NCO status.  She was advised of her rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt on 29 Jun 90.  Applicant did not appeal this decision.  

On 24 Jul 91, applicant's supervisor prepared an AF Form 418 recommending that she not be selected for reenlistment.  The basis for his recommendation was her declining duty performance and acceptance of responsibility; she was given letters of counseling, letters of reprimand, placed on the control roster and removed from NCO status; and she had shown no sign of improvement.  On 18 Oct 91, the commander concurred with the supervisor's recommendation and elected to not select her for selective reenlistment.  Applicant was advised of her rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt on 18 Oct 91.  Applicant elected to appeal this decision.  Her appeal was processed through the appropriate channels and on 27 Dec 91 the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel denied her appeal.  Applicant separated from the Air Force on 24 Jan 92 and was issued an Honorable Discharge certificate.  She had served 7 years, 11 months, and 25 days of active duty.

Examiner's note:  RE code 2X denotes "... considered but not selected under the Selective Reenlistment Program."  A letter was submitted requesting a copy of the IG Investigative report pertaining to the applicant and SMSgt  .  No report was available.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Special Programs and AFBCMR Program Manager, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPAE states that the applicant was denied award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal for the period 30 Jan 87 through 22 Dec 89.  On 28 Jun 90, her commander signed an AF Form 418, denying reenlistment and vacating her NCO status.  On 18 Oct 91, the commander again declined reenlistment followed by the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel denying an appeal by the applicant.  DPPAE is of opinion that the commander's action was justified and she has not satisfactorily indicated the commander’s action was inappropriate or not in compliance with Air Force policy (see Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Mar 01 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 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 probable error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record or the rationale provided by the Air Force.  After a thorough review of the documentation provided we found no evidence that would lead us to believe that the actions taken by the responsible officials to effect the vacation of her NCO status were improper or that her commander abused his discretionary authority.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of her appeal, we do not believe she has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 30 May 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Mar 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01.

                                 Panel Chair