RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01994
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to her discharge and upon being informed of her options for discharge it was never disclosed to her that an RE code of “2C” would render her ineligible to enlist in another branch of service.  Had she known this she may have made another decision.  The letter of notification indicates that she would be ineligible to reenlist in the Air Force.  It does not state that the discharge would render her ineligible to enlist in another branch of service.  She feels that it is an injustice that she was given an RE code of “2C” and would like it changed to a code that would make her eligible to enlist in the United States Navy.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, 3 character reference letters, and other documentation.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 August 1987 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

On 21 January 1988, the applicant was notified of her commander's intent to initiate discharge action against her for the following reasons:  letter from supervisor, dated 4 January 1988, letter from applicant, dated 7 January 1988, and a letter from the Branch Chief, dated 15 January 1988, essentially indicating the applicant’s disillusionment with the Air Force and her desire to go home (Exhibit B).

The commander advised applicant of her right to consult legal counsel and submit statements in her own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in her recommendation for discharge action that before recommending this discharge action, she had taken the rehabilitative actions in the form of: verbally counseling the member; however, she submitted a letter requesting separation.  The commander believed it would be in the best interest of the Air Force to honor the request before the applicant became more of an administrative burden.

On 22 January 1988, applicant waived her right to consult with counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf.

A legal review was conducted on 22 January 1988 in which the assistant staff judge advocate recommended that the applicant be separated with an entry level separation without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 26 January 1988, in the grade of airman basic with an uncharacterized discharge, under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Entry-Level Performance and Conduct).  She served a total of 5 months and 22 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separation Procedures Section, Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and states that the member was notified on 21 January 1988 that she was being discharged for eligibility and criteria and would receive an entry-level separation.  Her supervisor’s letter stated that she was disillusioned with the Air Force and its mission.  She had a misconception about her supply job.  After seven weeks as a Security Specialist, she was changed to Supply.  She was not happy with Supply and showed a lack of initiative to learn her job and adapt to military life.  She showed an amount of insecurity that hindered her from being a productive team player.  Her supervisors felt it was in the best interest of the Air Force to release her with an entry-level discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge and regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  However, the member’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, was incorrectly issued.  They have reissued a new DD Form 214 to correct the form to the terms that should have been annotated in the following areas: type of separation to “entry-level,” character of service to “uncharacterized,” and narrative reason for separation to “entry-level performance and conduct.”

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Assistant Chief, Skills Management Branch, Directorate of Personnel Programs Management, AFPC/DPPAE, also reviewed this application and states that they conducted a review of the applicant’s case file.  The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 31 August 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s RE code.  The RE code issued at the time of separation was in accordance with the applicable regulations.  However, the Board finds that based on the applicant’s post-service accomplishments and her desire to join the Navy, her RE code should be changed to “3A.”  The Board believes she should be afforded the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the armed services.  Whether or not she is successful will depend on the needs of the service and our recommendation in no way guarantees that she will be allowed to return to the Air Force or any branch of the service.  Therefore, we recommend her RE code be changed to “3A” (First-term airman, who separates before completing 36 months on current enlistment, and who has no known disqualifying factors or ineligibility conditions except grade and skill level and insufficient).

_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code issued in conjunction with her entry level separation on 26 January 1988 was “3A.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 11 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		Panel Chair
		Member
		Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 July 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 August 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 August 2001.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 August 2001.

			

AFBCMR 01-01994

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to, be corrected to show that her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code issued in conjunction with her entry level separation on 26 January 1988 was “3A.”