RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03558
INDEX CODE:  112.10
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 4H (serving suspended punishment to Article 15) to 1J (eligible to reenlist but elected to separate).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She wishes to continue her military career in the Air National Guard.  She has exhausted all available and effective administrative remedies to her request.  She fulfilled her punishment when she separated from active duty on 2 September 2002.  Since she left active duty prior to her punishment suspension of 4 December 2002, a 4H reentry code no longer applies.  She has had an extremely successful career and it is her desire to continue to serve as a member of the National Guard.  The leave fraud incident does not represent her; it only represents an error in her judgment.

In support of her application, the applicant provides a military timeline of events/resume, her last eight performance reports, her Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction license, and numerous certificates of appreciation, recognition and achievements.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 June 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years.  She was progressively promoted to the rank of staff sergeant (E-5) effective 1 April 1999.  She received eight performance reports, all with a promotion recommendation of five, for the period 3 June 1993 through 1 February 2002.  

On 2 June 2002, the applicant received punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for leave fraud.  As punishment, the applicant received a suspended reduction in grade to senior airman, until 4 December 2002, after which time it would be remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated; forfeiture of $270 pay; and a reprimand.  The applicant chose not to appeal the punishment.

On 2 September 2002, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of SSgt because of completion of regular active service.  She had served nine years and three months on active duty. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE stated the applicant received the correct RE Code upon her separation in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force.  The applicant separated while serving the suspended portion of her Article 15 punishment; therefore, her RE Code should not be changed.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 February 2003 for review and response (Exhibit D).  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 probable error or injustice.  It appears that the applicant’s RE code was properly assigned based on her circumstances at the time of her separation.  While it is true that she served honorably and well for the majority of her career, her RE code had its basis in the fact that she was undergoing suspended punishment under Article 15, for the commission of offense punishable under the UCMJ.  The applicant separated three months before the suspension was due to be remitted.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing her commander abused his discretionary authority when he determined she had committed the offense for which punishment was imposed, that her rights were violated, or that the RE code she received was contrary to the provisions of the governing Air Force instruction.  We note that the applicant’s RE code is one that may be waived.  However, whether or not a waiver would be approved would be based on the needs of the service to which she applies.  Accordingly, in view of all the above and in the absence of persuasive evidence which would lead us to believe the applicant was the victim of an error or injustice, her request 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 14 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03558 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 02, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Feb 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.