RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02076
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his RE code changed so he can be allowed to reenlist.  Prior to his separation from the Air Force, he submitted a request to have his High Year Tenure (HYT) extended by two years.  His request was denied without a reason being given by the chain of command at Ramstein Air Base, while similar requests from his squadron were approved without question.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, a character reference, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 May 1990 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

A resume of the applicant's performance reports follows:

		PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			16 Jan 92			3
			16 Jan 94			5
			16 Jan 95			5
			16 Jan 96			3
			16 Jan 97			4
			16 Jan 98			4
			30 Nov 98			4

Applicant received an RE code of 4D (Grade is senior airman or sergeant and member has completed at least 9 years of Total Air Force Military Service (TAFMS), but fewer than 16 years of TAFMS, and has not yet been selected for promotion to staff sergeant).

Applicant was honorably discharged on 5 May 2000, in the grade of senior airman, in accordance with AFI 36-3208 (Reduction In Force).  He completed 9 years, 11 months and 19 days of total active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They indicated that per Air Force policy, senior airman and sergeants HYT is ten years total active services.  The applicant did not achieve promotion to SSGT prior to his HYT and was discharged.  According to the applicant’s memorandum, he applied for a HYT waiver.  It was routed through his chain of command and sent to the 86th Wing at Ramstein for final approval/disapproval, but was returned for more justification.  Accordingly, commanders are the final approval authority on HYT waivers.  Based on applicant’s memorandum, they can conclude that the HYT waiver was processed and the commander denied applicant’s request.

Based on the documentation in applicant’s case file, the RE code given at the time of discharge is correct.  Furthermore, the applicant has not satisfactorily indicated the RE code was inappropriate or not in compliance with Air Force policy. 

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 25 October 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (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 an injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s RE code.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02076 in Executive Session on 10 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 June 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 October 2002, 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 October 2002.

				
					   Acting Panel Chair