RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00055
		INDEX CODE 100.06
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His reentry code is unfair because he had a vindictive rater.  He was wronged by a corrupt rating system.  He had a corrupt and vindictive rater, who did not understand he had a medically ill child.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he submits his child’s medical records and numerous letters from friends.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 14 February 1996 for a term of 4 years.  The applicant was discharged with service characterized as honorable on       13 February 2000 in the grade of airman first class. He served 4 years of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE indicates the applicant’s records revealed that on 14 October 1998, he received a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR).  On 3 March 1999, he was denied the Good Conduct Medal.  On 8 March 1999, the applicant’s commander signed an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Consideration, denying him reenlistment due to incapability to conform to Air Force standards, demonstrating very poor judgement, disregard for attending scheduled appointments, and incapability to retain AFSC information. AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  The applicant has not satisfactorily indicated the commander’s action to deny reenlistment was inappropriate or not in compliance with Air Force policy.  Therefore, based on the review of his case file, DPPAE indicates that the applicant's RE code 2X is correct.

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 March 2002, for review and comment 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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting a change to the applicant's reenlistment code.  We have reviewed the applicant’s contentions and the statements provided with this appeal.  In addition, the Board finds no persuasive evidence showing that the applicant was rated unfairly, that the report is in error, or that the evaluators were vindictive against the applicant, as alleged.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  In regards to he RE code, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number 02-00055 in Executive Session on 13 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 4 Mar 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 02.