RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00382

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed to allow him to rejoin the Armed Forces.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to early 1990 strength reduction he was given RE code 2X; however, since 2000, the Air Force has called back prior service personnel even from other components of the Armed Forces.  In view of this, his RE code should be changed to reflect that he can rejoin the military, complete twenty years of service, serve his country, and earn a benefit.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 April 1986 for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3).

He was medically cleared for entry into the Weight Management Program (WMP).  His maximum allowable weight (MAW) was 196 ½ pounds and his current weight was 201 pounds.

On 11 January 1989, his supervisor did not recommend him for reenlistment.  His supervisor noted that since 1988, he had received four Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for disrespect, unsatisfactory progress on the WMP, failure to go, and acts unbecoming of a military member.  In addition, his performance had been less than satisfactory on occasion.

The commander denied his reenlistment on 12 January 1989.  He did not appeal the denial of his reenlistment.

He was honorably discharged on 31 January 1990, under the Early Separation Program - Strength Reduction and issued an RE code of 2X (First term, second term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under SRP).  He completed 3 years, 9 months, and 16 days of active service.

Applicant’s performance profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING            EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE

        14 Apr 87                         8
         1 Dec 87                         7
         1 Dec 88                         7

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant has not provided any additional information to indicate that his RE code was erroneously or unfairly assessed to his file.

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 April 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 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 to warrant upgrading the applicant’s RE Code. In this respect, we note that the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Regulation in effect at the time of his separation and that he was afforded all the rights to which entitled. Furthermore, he provides no evidence that his separation was inappropriate or that the assigned RE Code reflecting that he was considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)  was in error or unjust.  There being insufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 BC-2003-00382 in Executive Session on 22 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair