RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00368
		INDEX CODE 100.06
				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There is no RE code of 2Y.  The need to have a valid reenlistment code will enable him to enlist in the Air Force Reserve.

In support of his appeal, he has submitted a copy of his DD Form 214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 28 August 1985 for a term of 4 years. The applicant was separated for expiration term of service on 27 December 1989 in the grade of senior airman.  He served 5 years and 4 months of active service.

On 14 March 1989, the applicant's commander signed an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Consideration, vacating the applicant's NCO status for misconduct off-duty.  
On 27 March 1989, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following offense: You were, at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, on or about 2 March 1989, drunk and disorderly.

On 17 April 1989, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, and submitted a written presentation.

On 21 April 1989, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: reduction to the grade of airman first class, (suspended until 18 Oct 89, at which time it will be remitted without further action unless sooner vacated) and 15 days extra duty.  He did not appeal the punishment.

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 Exhibits C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant has not satisfactorily indicated that the RE code was not properly given.  RE code 2Y was a valid code at the time of discharge.  Commander's action to deny reenlistment was not inappropriate and was in compliance with Air Force policy.  Based on the review of his case file, his RE code 2Y is correct.  

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 June 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 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.  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 records supports the stated reasons for the applicant's ineligibility to reenlist; i.e., his NCO status was vacated as a result of his conduct.  We are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the assigned RE code is in error or unjust or that an upgrade of the RE code is warranted on the basis of clemency.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 02-00368 in Executive Session on 20 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, not dated.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.