RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02510
		INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C to 1J so that he may serve in the Air National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not properly informed about what the codes meant when he was discharged.  The RE code is a mistake because his character of service has always been outstanding as evidenced by his performance ratings.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement.  His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 18 Oct 95.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman, below-the-zone, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 18 Apr 98.  

On 13 Jul 00, applicant was notified by his commander that she was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.11.  The specific reason for this action was that he was referred to mental health for a mental evaluation based on an ongoing fear of flight and the withdrawal of his wings.  He received mental health treatment for his phobia, at which time he disclosed extreme anxiety, tightness in chest, rapid heart rate, and inability to concentrate both prior to and while in flight.  He was diagnosed with a specific phobia, situational type, fear of flying and the psychologist did not advise cross training for the purpose of worldwide qualifications.  He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  After consulting counsel, he elected to waive his right to submit matters to his commander for consideration.  In a legal review of the case file, the wing deputy staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended that he be discharged.  On 21 Jul 00, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed that he be discharged with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  He was discharged on 21 Jul 00 and issued an RE code of "2C.".  He served 4 years, 9 months, and 4 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  He did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed applicant's request and states that the RE code 2C, "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service," is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Nov 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  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.  Evidence has not been provided in support of his appeal which would lead us to believe that a change to his reenlistment eligibility is warranted.  We took notice of his complete submission in judging the merits of this case; however, we do not find his assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Absent persuasive evidence that the applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled or that the appropriate standards were not applied during his discharge processing, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 issue 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 Docket Number 02-02510 in Executive Session on 18 Dec 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated7 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 24 Oct 02
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.