RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02411
		INDEX CODE:  100.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His military service was spotless except for an incident involving a coworker who he allowed to stay with him off base while the individual was waiting to be discharged.  The Office of Special Investigations (OSI) found a small amount of marijuana hidden in the room where the coworker slept and he (applicant) was given an Article 15 (which is not in his records) even though he tested negative on a urinalysis test.  As evidenced by his performance reports, his overall performance was above standard.  He served his country with dedication and the highest level of professionalism and was consistently recommended for promotion.  He would like to serve his country again through the Air Force Reserves.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) was 20 Nov 78.

On 21 Jan 83, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for wrongfully using marijuana on 2 Dec 82.

On 21 Jan 83, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and did not submit a written presentation.

On 28 Jan 83, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment:  Reduction from the grade of sergeant to the grade of airman first class and forfeiture of $100 pay but the execution of that portion of the punishment which provided for reduction to the grade of airman first class was suspended until 21 Jul 83, at which time, unless sooner vacated, it would be remitted without further action.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 28 Jan 83, the applicant’s commander signed an AF Form 418 (Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration) vacating his noncommissioned officer-in-charge (NCO) status due to his actions concerning his bearing and behavior in the squadron were not becoming of an NCO.

On 13 Sep 84, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39‑10 (Fiscal Year 1984 (FY84) Early Separation Program - Strength Reduction) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of senior airman.  He received an RE code of 2X (First-term airman considered but not selected under SRP, or has been denied appointment to NCO status, or has had NCO status vacated).  He was credited with 5 years, 9 months, and 24 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed this application and recommends denial.  The applicant has not satisfactorily indicated the commander’s action to vacate his NCO status which denied him reenlistment was inappropriate or not in compliance with Air Force policy.  Should the Board decide to grant relief to the applicant, his RE code should be changed to 3K (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR)).

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 26 Oct 01 for review and response within 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.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  We have reviewed the applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force in 1984.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction.  Members separated from the Air Force are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation.  Applicant’s RE code accurately defines the circumstances of his separation.  In view of the above, we have no basis on which to make any changes to the record; thus, we find no compelling reason to grant the request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 18 December 2001, under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36‑2603:

	Vice Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 Oct 01.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Oct 01.