RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02193

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4E be upgraded to allow his reenlistment.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received an honorable discharge and is now contemplating enlistment in the Air Force Reserve or the Air National Guard; however, his RE code of 4E is preventing him from doing so.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 August 1995 for a period of four years.

On 12 June 1997, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Articles 92, 111, and 134.  Specifically, for being derelict in his duties by consuming alcohol on 17 May 1997, for possessing false identification, and for physically controlling a vehicle while impaired.  After consulting with military counsel, he waived his right to trial by court-martial and accepted the nonjudicial punishment.  The commander considered his written presentation and on 19 June 1997, determined that he did commit one or more of the alleged offenses and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of airman, with a new date of rank of 19 June 1997, 45 days of extra duty, and a reprimand.  He did not appeal the punishment.
On 23 July 1997, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Article 134.  Specifically, for wrongfully and falsely tamper with, by changing the date of birth, a certain instrument purporting to be another member’s identification card in words and figures as follows:  from 26 July 1977 to 28 March 1976.  After consulting with military counsel, he waived his right to trial by court-martial and accepted the nonjudicial punishment.  The commander considered his written presentation and on 4 August 1997, determined that he did commit the alleged offense and imposed punishment consisting of forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for two months; however, it was suspended until 1 February 1998.  He did not appeal the punishment.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 22 August 1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service), and issued an RE Code of 4E.  He completed four years of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the RE code the applicant received is correct.  He has not satisfactorily indicated the RE code was inappropriate or not in compliance with Air Force policy.

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 October 2002 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant upgrading the applicant’s RE Code.  After thoroughly reviewing the available evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing instruction in effect at the time of his separation.  The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that his separation was inappropriate.  Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number 02-02193 in Executive Session on 7 January 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 9 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 02.