RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01750
INDEX CODE:  112.10 
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 4A (hardship or dependency discharge) to 1J (eligible to reenlist but elected to separate) to enable him to re-enter the USAF.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He and his military spouse consulted AFPC about joint spouse assignments to Antioch, IL, where his spouse had a report-not-later-than-date (RNLTD) of 30 Sep 01 as a recruiter.  They received a negative response from AFPC.  He attempted to apply for a Palace Chase assignment with the --- Air National Guard and again received disapproval.  He was concerned about potential financial and custody problems arising from him being separated from his wife and child.  He also needed to be in the Chicago area to care for an ill father.  He had also been accepted to attend Chicago State University.

On 1 August 2001, he requested a miscellaneous discharge instead of a hardship or dependency discharge.  The MPF misled him during his separation process.  The MPF advised him that a miscellaneous discharge was the easiest and fastest way to separate.  He would have taken measures to ensure his availability to continue to serve had he known he would not be able to reenter active duty.

In support of his application, he provides a personal statement; his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty; and letters of recommendation supporting a miscellaneous discharge from members in his chain-of-command along with a letter of support from his chaplain.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 December 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 20 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.  Member was progressively promoted to the rank of Senior Airman effective 22 January 2001.

On 31 July 2001, the applicant requested an early separation for miscellaneous reasons under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (sic), paragraph 3.15.  The separation authority approved his request on 13 August 2001.  On 15 September 2001, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 with an RE code of 4A and a separation code of KND (miscellaneous/general reasons).  He had served 3 years, 7 months and 24 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE conducted a review of the applicant’s case file and concluded his RE code of 4A, “Separated for hardship or dependency reasons” was properly assessed to the applicant’s record as he was discharged in accordance to Air Force Directives.  The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors of injustices that occurred in the discharge process.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge.  The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant points out that the advisory from AFPC/DPPRS states that under the provisions of AFI 36-2208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, he was separated for miscellaneous/general reasons.  The advisory from AFPC/DPPAE states that a 4A reenlistment code is defined as “Separated for hardship or dependency reasons.”

When he was seeking separation, he was advised by the MPF separations section representative not to attempt to be discharged under a hardship separation.  The MPF recommended a miscellaneous separation because the process would be quicker.  He took the MPF representative’s advice and his request was granted.  He did not realize at the time of separation that the RE-4A was a hardship separation code.

The applicant indicates separation was his only solution to circumstances in his life at that time.  He has since reevaluated his circumstances and is now available to return to active duty.

The applicant’s review, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the available records, we found no evidence that the RE Code assigned at the time of the applicant’s separation was contrary to the governing regulation or unjust.  The applicant asserts he was miscounseled at the time he submitted his application for separation.  However, other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence to substantiate this claim.  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 stated reasons for applicant’s separation and the corresponding RE code assigned in his case and the applicant has provided no evidence showing the problems he cited as reasons for his desire to separate from the Regular Air Force in 2001 have been resolved.  We note that, according to the governing instruction, the applicant’s RE code is a waiverable one; however, we believe the determination as to whether it should be waived should be made by the branch of service to which he applies.  Based on the above and in the absence of evidence showing that the applicant’s request for separation was coerced in any way, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 in Executive Session on 3 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket No. 02-01750:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 02, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 20 Aug 02.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Aug 02.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 14 Sep 02, with
                Attachments. 

									
									Panel Chair