RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00469
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3D”, “Second term or career airman who refused to get PCS or TDY assignment retainability”, be changed to one that will allow him to reenlist in the Air force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He only verbally requested a change in the location of his follow-on assignment after completion of his overseas assignment, which resulted in an erroneous RE code being updated in his records.

There is no signed AF Form 964, “PCS, TDY, OR TRAINING DECLINATION STATEMENT”, in his records as required by Air Force instructions.

His Air Force Specialty, Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 1A4XX, is only 72% manned and his reenlistment will help with the high operations tempo.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a letter of support from his former commander at his last Air Force assignment and copies of his Air Force performance reports.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

He applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 6 Jun 85.  He was promoted up to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt).  According to a reaccomplished AF Form 964, dated 10 Jan 03, the applicant was selected for an assignment to Robins Air Force Base, but declined to get the necessary retainability.  The applicant was discharged on 10 Jan 03 in the grade of TSgt with 17 years, 7 months, and 5 days of military service.  Additional facts relevant to this case are contained in the evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force found at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  In accordance (IAW) with AFI 36-2110, proper procedures were followed regarding the applicant’s discharge and subsequent RE code.  The applicant did not include all the facts in his case and was thoroughly briefed on the ramifications for failing to acquire the needed retainability for an assignment.  AFPC/DPAO has attached an in-depth summary, prepared by AFPC/DPAOM, of the actions that occurred in the applicant’s case and addresses specific contentions.  For example, AFPC/DPAOM states that the applicant’s career field was 85% at the time of his assignment and has increased to 95% today.  They also indicate that they did not change the applicant’s assignment until they knew for a fact that he had been counseled regarding the ramifications of turning down the assignment to Robins AFB.  They also talked to the Americam Component Operations Chief and personnel at the military personnel flight (MPF) to ensure that the applicant had been counseled.

The complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends that the applicant’s request be denied.  A review of the applicant’s records revealed that the applicant did not obtain the required 12 months retainability and therefore, his date expected return from overseas (DEROS) was automatically established IAW AFI 36-2110.  The applicant had two separate assignments to go to Robins AFB and on both occasions refused to get sufficient retainability.  In order to return to the CONUS, members must have or retain 12 months service retainability no later than 30 days after receipt of their DEROS Election Option or Forecast Notification or apply for separation.  The applicant did not comply with any these requirements while stationed at his overseas assignment.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant provides his summary of the events that took place in his case.  The applicant rebuts specific contentions made in the in-depth summary provided by AFPC/DPAOM.  The applicant indicates that in all of the correspondence and e-mail traffic provided to him, nowhere does it state that he signed the AF Form 964.

The applicant’s complete submission 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant emphasizes the fact that there is not an Air Force Form 964 in his records.  However, he does not make a compelling case that he never signed an Air Force Form 964.  We note that the applicant already has a waiverable RE code and has not provided any evidence that he has applied for a waiver to reenlist and been denied.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________

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-2003-00469 in Executive Session on 19 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAO, dated 14 Mar 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 20 May 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair