RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02576
		INDEX CODE:  100.06

		COUNSEL:  NONE 

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She served eight and half years on active duty and now has no veteran benefits.  She found out that the code was in the system when she tried to enlist in the Air Force Reserve.  She cannot reenlist until the code is changed.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 Aug 90.

On 8 Oct 98, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was considering whether she should be punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), based on allegations that the applicant did, on or about 15 Jul 98, without authority, absent herself from her place of duty at which she was required to be, and did remain so absent until on or about 17 Jul 98; she did, on diverse occasions, between on or about 25 Apr 98 and on or about 12 May 98, fail to obey a lawful general regulation (AFI 65-104) by using her United States Government American Express Travel Charge Card for other than “official use” by making 12 miscellaneous cash advances in excess of $1,089.00 while not in official travel status; she did, on or about 15 Jul 98, with intent to deceive, sign an official document (AF Form 988) which was false in that she assigned a false leave number to the document; and, she did on or about 16 Jul 98, wrongfully solicit an airman to destroy an AF Form 988.  The applicant was advised of her rights in the matter.  After consulting legal counsel, the applicant waived her right to demand trial by court-martial, accepted the nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15, and submitted written comments for review.  On 21 Oct 98, after considering the matters presented by the applicant, the commander found that she had committed one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment.  She was reduced from the grade of senior airman to airman first class, and reduced from the grade of airman first class to airman basic, which was suspended until 20 Apr 99.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

Applicant was honorably discharged on 30 Nov 98 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Hardship) and assigned an RE code of 4H (Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)).  She was credited with 8 years, and 3 months of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS indicated that AFPC/DPPAES would address the RE Code issue.  However, based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  In AFPC/DPPRS’ view, the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAES evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial of the applicant’s request to change her RE code, indicating that a review of her records revealed that she did receive punishment under Article 15, which was contradictory to her statement.  Members serving punishment under Article 15 receive an RE code of 4H.  The fact that the applicant requested and was granted separation for hardship reasons does not change the RE code which was in effect at the time of her separation.  In AFPC/DPPAE’s view, the applicant presented no evidence that the RE code was improperly assessed to her records.  According to AFPC/DPPAE, the RE code is correct.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 22 Nov 02 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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.  We note that the Secretary of the Air Force has statutory authority to promulgate rules and regulations governing the administration of the Air Force.  In the exercise of that authority, the Secretary has determined that members separated from the Air Force would be furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was honorably discharged for hardship reasons.  However, because she was separated while serving a suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, UCMJ, she was assigned an RE code of 4H.  Therefore, the applicant’s RE code apparently was appropriately assigned and accurately reflected the circumstances of her separation, and, we find no evidence to indicate the assigned RE code was in error.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request that her RE code of 4H be changed.  We believe it should be pointed out to the applicant that her RE code of 4H is one that, based on the needs of the respective military service, can be waived by the enlistment authorities.

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02576 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 22.