RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02535
INDEX CODE:  112.10
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_______ __________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C (involuntary separation with honorable discharge) to enable him to enter the Air Force Reserve.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he attempted to enlist in the Air Force Reserve, he discovered that the RE code on his discharge documents prevented him from doing so.  He was not aware his separation from the Air Force was based on his performance or that his RE code prevented his reentry into military service.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal statement, eight letters of recommendation, and the last two performance evaluations from his civilian employer.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 May 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 22 in the grade of airman first class (E-3) for a period of four years.  The applicant was trained in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 605X5, Air Transportation career field.  The applicant’s Primary Air Force Specialty Codes (PAFSC) was upgraded to the 5-skill level, 60555, Passenger Reservation Specialist, effective 3 April 1992.  He received two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 8 January 1993 and 30 September 1993, in which the promotion recommendations were 3 and 2, respectively.

On 3 September 1993, the applicant’s supervisor submitted an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration, nonrecommending the applicant for reenlistment due to substandard performance.  On 7 September 1993, the applicant’s Squadron Section Commander approved the applicant’s nonselection for reenlistment.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the action on 8 September 1993 and elected not to appeal the decision.  

The applicant was notified by his Squadron Section Commander on 20 September 1993, of the intent to downgrade his PAFSC to the 3‑skill level, 60535, due to substandard performance.  An AF Form 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action, was completed on 20 September 1993, downgrading the applicant’s PAFSC 60555 to PAFSC 60535 due to substandard performance effective 20 September 1993. 

On 10 March 1994, the applicant’s supervisor recommended that the applicant be separated due to unacceptable performance.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the recommendation on 12 April 1994.  On 26 May 1994, the applicant’s Squadron Section Commander recommended the applicant not be considered for cross training.  On 22 June 1994, the applicant’s Squadron Section Commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend the applicant for discharge based on unsatisfactory duty performance.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on the same day.  On 27 June 1994, the Squadron Section Commander signed a recommendation to the discharge authority for the applicant’s discharge based on unsatisfactory duty performance.  The applicant indicated he had consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements.  On 28 June 1994, the recommendation was found to be legally sufficient by the Acting Staff Judge Advocate.  The discharge authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AFPD 39-10, paragraph 5-26a(1) on 29 June 1994.  The applicant was honorably discharged effective 8 July 1994 with a separation code JHJ (unsatisfactory performance) and a reentry code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge).  He had served 3 years, 2 months and 19 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the applicant’s case file and concludes that the RE code of 2C is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed the applicant’s case file and concurs that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant does not recall his Commander’s notification of the recommended discharge action nor does he recall acknowledging receipt of notification.  He also does not recall consulting legal counsel concerning his case.  He states that his supervisor only notified him of an offer for an honorable discharge.  He wishes a second chance to do a good job by serving his country in the Air Force Reserve.  The applicant’s review is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The RE code which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust.  In view of the foregoing, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 5 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket No. 02-02535:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 02, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Oct 02.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Sep 02.
	Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 2 Dec 02.