RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02509
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his separation apparently there was an incorrect reenlistment code entered in his DD Form 214.  This was discovered by his Air Force Reserve recruiter.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of his DD Form 214, a copy of his Selective Reenlistment Consideration document, two certificates, and several supportive statements prepared in March 1982.  The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 April 1980.  The following is a resume of his Airman Performance Report (APR ratings.

	PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

	  8 Apr 1981 (A1C)	         7
	  5 Jan 1982	         5
*	 12 Mar 1982	         6
	 31 Jul 1982	         7

NOTE:  * - Referral report.  After reviewing the applicant’s
           comments, the first indorser upgraded the overall
           evaluation assigned by the rater from a 4 to a 6.
           (It appears the supportive statements provided by the
           applicant at Exhibit A were presented with his
           rebuttal comments to the rater’s assessment.)

By letter dated 13 January 1982, the commander denied the award of the Good Conduct Medal to the applicant.

The applicant was promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 1982.  

On 31 May 1983, the applicant’s supervisor initiated an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration, recommending the applicant for reenlistment.  His commander nonselected him for reenlistment on 8 June 1983, stating that the applicant’s past duty performance and behavior did not qualify him under the quality control program for reenlistment.  The applicant elected not to appeal this decision.

On 1 September 1983, the applicant was involuntarily honorably discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, FY 83 Early Separation Program – Strength Reduction.  He was assigned a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X “First term airman considered but not selected under SRP.”  He had served 3 years, 4 months and 23 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE states that based on the review of his case file, his RE code 2X is correct.  The applicant has not satisfactorily established that the commander’s action to deny reenlistment was inappropriate or not in compliance with Air Force policy.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.  A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that in reference to AFPC/DPPAE stating that a review of his records revealed that on 8 June 1983, Colonel H--- signed an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Consideration, which denied him the right to reenlist due to past duty performance, and behavior, he truly finds this quite interesting as he holds in his possession another form not designated with any particular no, in which Lt Colonel clearly initials and signs his recommendation for reenlistment on 31 March 1983.  He notes that this document he holds is not a forgery, or has been altered in any way.  Furthermore, he holds the original document.  It is this particular reason why he finds AFPC/DPPAE’s findings inconsistent, and challenge them or anyone else involved in this matter to find any type of reprimand or negative entry in his military records from the period of 31 March 1983 to 8 June 1983, which would influence his commander’s original decision of recommendation for reenlistment.

For the record, and please believe him that this brings extremely painful memories, the only reason he separated originally, and asked for early separation under a special early separation program at that time, was because of a particular NCOIC Staff Sergeant, who for a period of three years made his military service period a living hell by constantly attacking him and his family, directly because of his ethnic background.

He’s sure the underlying question you must be asking is why is he almost twenty years after separation with an honorable discharge already in his possession wanting to return and serve actively in the Air Force Reserve.  The answer is quite simple and sincere; when he saw the events on 11 September 2001, he decided then he had to in some way become part of the fight and immediately called the Air Force Reserve Recruiter.  He honestly believes that regardless how small of a contribution he could make to fight terrorism against the country which gave him everything he has, including freedom, he would.  He strongly still feels that regardless of personal risk, if he is given the chance, he will make his country and its Air Force proud each and every minute that he once again serve.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  The applicant provides a computer-generated Selective Reeenlistment Program (SRP) consideration, in which his supervisor (not the commander as the applicant states), recommended him for reenlistment on 31 March 1983.  The official SRP document contained in the applicant’s record, the AF Form 418, shows that his supervisor again recommended him for reenlistment.  However, his commander, who was vested with the discretionary authority to determine whether the applicant should be allowed to reenlist, nonselected the applicant for reenlistment.  The applicant was advised of this decision and elected not to appeal.  There is nothing in the record which would lead us to conclude that the commander erred in this matter.  While it is true there is no record of any disciplinary action taken against the applicant, the ratings and comments on his performance reports support the commander’s decision.  The applicant asserts that his problems stemmed from the bias of and mistreatment by the rater on his performance reports.  In this regard, we are constrained to note that each of his evaluators was responsible for independently assessing his performance and they could disagree with the rater’s assessments if they believed such action was appropriate.  In fact, this is exactly what occurred in the case of the applicant’s report closing 12 March 1982.  The supportive statements provided by the applicant were prepared contemporaneously with this report and it appears that the sentiments of the authors were known to the applicant’s rating chain, which included his commander.  In view of the above and in the absence of persuasive evidence by the applicant showing that his commander abused his discretionary authority, that his substantial rights were violated, or that he would now be able to successfully function in the highly structured military environment, we find no basis on which to favorably consider 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 issues 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 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 30 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Oct 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Nov 02.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Letter, dated 16 Nov 02.