RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02099
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED: No 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2X”, first-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP), to one in the “1” series that will allow her to reenlist in the Air Force.

In a rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, applicant now requests that she be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force, promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) and allowed to cross train into the Paralegal career field she was approved for prior to her discharge.

She be paid all back pay and allowances from the time she was involuntarily separated.

If reinstated to active duty, she requests that she be given a join spouse assignment.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her commander treated her unjustly by denying her reenlistment in the Air Force.

She was placed under investigation for unauthorized use of her government credit card.  The charges were eventually dropped but her commander informed her that he was not recommending her for reenlistment.

At the time of her discharge, she was not aware that the leadership in her squadron had knowledge that her government card and her personal credit card, both issued by Bank of America, had the same account number.  This information was sent by e-mail to personnel in her unit who then failed to inform her or her area defense counsel (ADC).  It was weeks after her discharge that she became aware of the e-mail.

She had over nine years of exemplary service and received many types of recognition during her career.  The applicant believes her squadron leadership and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) made a mistake in regards to the investigation against her and in order to save face decided to get rid of her.  She was not notified in writing of her commander’s intent not to elect her for reenlistment and did not receive an opportunity to appeal his decision.  According to AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.1.2, involuntary discharge is not a substitute for disciplinary action.  Since she was exonerated of all charges, there was no basis for disciplinary action or involuntary discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 31 Aug 90.  She was discharged on 10 Dec 99 after she was denied reenlistment.  She was given an RE code of “2X.”  A complete resume of her overall enlisted performance ratings follows:

	Closeout Date				Overall Rating

	  29 Apr 92					4
	  11 Nov 92					5
	  07 Sep 93					5
	  07 Sep 94					4
	  07 Sep 95					5
	  07 Sep 96					5
	  07 Sep 97				missing from file
	 *08 Jul 98					5
	  08 Jul 99					5

*  The copy of this EPR sent in by the applicant is different from the one filed in the applicant’s official records.  The copy sent in by the applicant does not contain any markdowns in Section III, while the copy filed in the official records is marked down in Section III, Item 5.  On 6 Mar 03, the AFBCMR forwarded the applicant copies of the EPRs for her review and comments (Exhibit K).

In her response regarding the discrepancy, the applicant contends that the copy of the EPR she sent in was included in a package given to her by the US Air Force Academy Military Personnel Flight (MPF) upon her discharge.  She states that she did assist in preparing her cross training package, including making copies of her EPRs.  She states that the EPR with the discrepancy was filed in her unit personal information file (PIF).  The applicant states that she never verified that the copies she had were the same as those in her official personnel file.  She states that the discrepancy further perpetuates her belief that her squadron leadership lacked integrity.  The applicant’s complete statement is at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends that the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K,” and that she exhaust all reenlistment waiver options through recruiting service before applying to AFPC.  There is no documentation to support the applicant being denied reenlistment.  Her past performance reports and other documentation in her file indicate that she clearly exceeded Air Force standards.  An e-mail message from the Bank of America to her unit clearly states that the applicant had two accounts with the same number.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by indicating that she agrees with the determination that she was treated unjustly.  She states that after consulting counsel, she would like to amend her application.  She believes that she should be reinstated to the Air Force and promoted to the TSgt.  She indicates that if she had been allowed to continue her career, she would have been eligible to test for promotion to TSgt in the year 2000.  She requests that she be paid all back pay and allowances, with interest, from the date she was involuntarily discharged.  She also requests that she be allowed to continue with the cross training that had been approved prior to her discharge.  Finally, she requests a join spouse assignment since she is married to a military member.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, additional Air Force evaluations were prepared to address the issues and additional requests brought out in the applicant’s response at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request for automatic promotion to TSgt.  Based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) of 1 Nov 98 to staff sergeant (SSgt), she would have first been eligible for promotion consideration to TSgt during cycle 01E6 (promotions effective Aug 01-Jul 02).  Since she was no longer on active duty, she was not eligible to be considered for this cycle.  Should the Board grant her request to reenlist, she would be eligible for supplemental consideration to TSgt beginning with cycle 01E6.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends that the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K,” reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate.  They also recommend, if the applicant is allowed to return to active duty, that she be allowed to return in the Paralegal career field, since she was projected for retraining prior to her discharge.

A review of the applicant’s records indicates that she was an excellent performer.  She was medically disqualified from the Security Forces AFSC.  She was highly recommended for retraining into the Paralegal career field by her commander, first sergeant, supervisors, and base staff judge advocate.  There is no documentation to support her being denied reenlistment.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

AFPC/DPPRS evaluated the applicant’s discharge processing.  They do not find any documentation in her record to support the action taken.  Based on this and the evaluations provided by AFPC/DPPPWB and AFPC/DPPAE, they recommend that the applicant be granted administrative relief.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit H.

AFPC/DPAAD2 addressed the applicant’s request for a join spouse assignment.  They do not make a recommendation but indicate that if the applicant is granted relief, they will do their utmost to assign her with her husband.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT”S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the additional Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 Jan 03 for review and response within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 regarding the applicant’s request for reinstatement to active duty in the Air Force, promotion to technical sergeant, and payment of all back pay and allowances from the date of her separation.  Subsequently, there is no basis to consider her request for a join spouse assignment and that she be allowed to cross train into the paralegal career field.  Although the applicant did not have documented misconduct or duty performance deficiencies entered into her record, the OSI Report of Investigation prepared on her contains very strong evidence of infractions that could have supported denial of reenlistment.  The Board presumes that the commander failed to follow reenlistment procedures through ignorance or oversight, and not malice.  In any event, the Board is unconvinced that had the proper procedures been followed, the applicant would have successfully challenged the denial of reenlistment.  Since the Board is unwilling to speculate as to the result of a reenlistment appeal, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting this portion of the relief sought in this application.

4.  Notwithstanding our decision above, we believe that sufficient evidence of an error or injustice has been presented warranting a measure of relief.  In that regard, we believe that the lack of proper documentation and evidence of administrative or disciplinary actions taken against the applicant supports a change in the applicant’s Reenlistment Eligibility code.  The Board believes the appropriate code change should be to “3K,” rather than a code in the “1” series.  This will allow the applicant to apply for reenlistment in the Air Force should she so desire.  Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of her discharge on 10 December 1999, her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code was RE-3K.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002-02099 in Executive Session on 1 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records;
	  OSI Report of Investigation, w/d.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Oct 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Oct 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Dec 02.
     Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 23 Dec 02.
     Exhibit H.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jan 03.
     Exhibit I.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAAD2, dated 13 Jan 03.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Mar 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Mar 03.

                                   Vice Chair

AFBCMR BC-2002-02099

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to XXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that at the time of her discharge on               10 December 1999, her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code was RE-3K.

		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency