RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03151
		INDEX CODE:  100.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he may reenlist in the military.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unaware of the relevance of the RE code contained on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty).  He was very young and immature upon enlistment in the Air Force.  He was not mature enough to sustain and cope with an assignment to Clark AB, Philippines.  It was not that he did not like the Air Force but it was a matter of immaturity.  His wife was very miserable and the stress compiled until he felt his only option was separation.  He is now 32 years old with two children and his family and he are very respected members of their community.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 Jun 87, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 21 Jun 88, the applicant requested that he be separated as soon as possible in accordance with AFR 39‑10, Chapter 3, Section C, paragraph 3‑19.  The reason for his request was as follows: Since he has been in the Philippines, he has not had a good night sleep, accompanied with severe depression caused from his job and the Philippines.  Also, a loss of appetite and a lack of sleep had resulted in a weight loss of 25 pounds.  He felt as though he could not cope with the place, his job, and/or the Air Force.  He felt he should be separated so his wife and himself could start over, to build a new concrete foundation for themselves.  He knows he will never be able to go back to the Air Force knowing how he feels.  He had serious problems he felt could better be resolved outside the Air Force, at his home of residence.  A separation from the Air Force would help his wife and him in the long run to help him recuperate from several long-term problems.  Therefore, a separation as soon as possible would save a lot of hardship for his family, himself, and the Air Force in general.

On 8 Jul 88, the commander recommended the applicant be separated from the Air Force.  The commander indicated that it was quite obvious that the applicant would not be a productive security policeman due to the recent events and that the scope of the problems that he was trying to resolve would thereby also prohibit a cross-training into another career field.  Therefore, the commander felt that it would be in the best interest of the Air Force and the applicant that he separate from the service.

On 25 Jul 88, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39‑10 (Hardship Reasons) in the grade of airman first class with an honorable characterization of service and an RE code of 4A (Separated for Hardship or Dependence Reasons).  He was credited with 1 year, 6 months, and 20 days of active service.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP reviewed this application and recommends denial.  They state that even though the applicant has made great changes in his life, he did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and based on the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.

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

AFPC/DPPAE also reviewed this application and indicated that the RE code of 4A is correct.

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

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 15 Feb 02 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 but the Board chose to consider it in the interests of justice.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  At the time a member is separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE Code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation.  The assigned code reflects the Air Force’s position regarding whether or not, or under what circumstances, the individual should be allowed to reenlist.  The evidence of record supports the Air Force’s stated reasons for applicant’s separation.  We noted the great changes in the applicant’s life, however, we are not persuaded that the assigned RE code is in error or unjust or that a correction of the RE code is warranted.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  We note that the RE code of “4A” is a waiverable code; therefore, we suggest that the applicant contact his local recruiter concerning his reaffiliation to the military.

________________________________________________________________

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; 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 01-03151 in Executive Session on 26 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 7 Dec 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Jan 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Feb 02, w/atchs.