RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01151
INDEX CODE:  110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  XXXXX

XXX-XX-XXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 Jul 06

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be awarded a 20-year active duty retirement in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) effective June 1996.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was improperly denied reenlistment and was separated under the Enlisted Early Release Program due to his commander’s personal involvement in his divorce.  He was denied the opportunity to continue his Air Force career, the opportunity to be promoted to master sergeant, and a length of service retirement.  

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal statement, a statement from his counsel, and copies of extracts from his military personnel records.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 June 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.  He reenlisted on 17 April 1981 for a period of five years.  This later enlistment was extended on 3 April 1986 for a period of 8 months for the purpose of entry into training, resulting in a new date of separation of 16 December 1986.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) effective and with a date of rank of 1 November 1980.  He received nine performance reports between 29 December 1977 and 4 August 1985 all with overall ratings of 9.

On 4 June 1985, the applicant was nonselected for reenlistment based on his failure to conform to the requirements of the Weight Management Program.  His commander approved a weight waiver on 15 January 1986 based on the recommendation of medical authorities.  On 25 March 1986, the applicant was selected for reenlistment.
On or about 13 August 1986, the applicant’s commander nonselected the applicant for award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal during the period 29 June 1985 to 9 December 1986.

On 29 September 1986, the applicant was involuntarily discharged with an honorable discharge with a separation code of J22 (early separation program - strength reduction) and a reentry code of 4I (serving on control roster).  He served ten years and three months on active duty.

In an affidavit provided by the applicant, signed by the applicant’s commander, marked filed by a Clerk of a Family Court on 16 October 1986, the commander indicated he had verbally counseled the applicant on numerous occasions concerning his apparent lack of financial responsibility, beginning on or about 14 January 1986.  In April 1986, based on continuing evidence in the form of notification of dishonored checks, the commander stated he formally counseled the applicant and placed his name on the wing’s control roster for financial irresponsibility on 10 April 1986.  The commander indicated he advised the applicant at that time he would not be permitted to reenlist if during the period of four months prior to the end of his commitment he did not show significant improvement in his financial management.  The commander’s affidavit also contained references to the applicant’s failure to maintain weight standards.

The applicant’s file contains a request from an Air Force recruiter, dated 13 March 1989, requesting a copy of the applicant’s records for the purpose of enlistment in the Air Force Reserve.  The applicant signed the form authorizing release of his records.  By letter dated 2 August 1989, authorities at the Air Force Personnel Center, Reenlistment Program and Policy Branch, informed the applicant that his RE code was waiverable for the purpose of enlistment in a prior service enlistment consideration.  He was advised concerning the procedures for requesting such a waiver and for his right to appeal to the Board should his request for a waiver be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  DPPRRP states the applicant’s active service totals ten years and three months, well short of the required time for an active duty retirement in accordance to Title 10 United States Code Section 8914.  In 1989, the applicant applied through the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records to have his reenlistment (RE) code changed because he wished to join a Reserve unit.  On 2 August 1989, the Reenlistment Programs and Policy Branch at (then) Air Force Military Personnel Center advised the applicant that his existing RE Code of “4I” could be waived for prior enlistment consideration through active or Reserve recruiters.  The applicant has not submitted evidence that he requested or was denied such a waiver in order to continue his active or Reserve service to qualify for a 20-year active or Reserve retirement.  He was advised that he had the opportunity to continue with his Air Force career, which could have resulted in the promotion and retirement eligibility he desired.  The AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that on 3 September 1986, his commander notified the applicant that he was recommended for discharge from the Air Force as a part of the force reduction program in effect at that time.  The applicant met the criteria for the program because he was on a control roster for financial mismanagement and had an RE code of “4I.”  It is DPPRS’s opinion that the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSFM recommends denial.  After reviewing the applicant’s records, it is DPSFM’s opinion that his discharge was appropriate based on his control roster action during a strength reduction.  The DPSFM evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He did not submit an appeal to this Board in 1989.  He only requested assistance from his Congressman.  He was aware the RE code of “4I” could be waived for enlisting in the Reserve; however, he was only interested in returning to active duty so he never applied for a waiver.  He had ten years of outstanding performance evaluations and not a bad mark that would indicate any reason for a discharge.  While he may have technically met the criteria for discharge under force reduction, his commander had ulterior motives in the denial of his enlistment.  As support, he submits an affidavit signed by his commander, which was filed on behalf of his wife in a divorce action.  The financial problems the commander references in the affidavit were caused by his wife writing bad checks.  He brought the financial problems to the attention of his first sergeant and he thought they were resolved.  His weight problems that he struggled with were under control and should not have been a factor in his denial of reenlistment (see Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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.

    a.  Evidence has not been provided that would lead us to believe the applicant’s discharge in September 1986 under the provisions of the FY 1986 Enlisted Early Release Program was erroneous or unjust.  The available evidence indicates the applicant was identified for separation under the program based on the fact that his commander placed his name on the control roster some five months earlier in April 1986.  While the commander’s affidavit does mention weight issues and the evidence of record does indicate a waiver of the applicant’s weight was approved in January 1986, other than the assertions of applicant and counsel, we have seen no evidence indicating the applicant’s placement on the control roster because of financial irresponsibility was improper or an abuse of discretionary authority.  In the absence of evidence showing he was treated differently than others similarly situated at that time, we have no basis to find his involuntary separation under the approved early release program was erroneous or unjust.

    b.  We believe it should be noted that the applicant was advised in 1989 that a waiver of his RE code was possible for entry into a prior service program.  This response was prompted, apparently, by the applicant’s attempt to enter the Air Force Reserve.  (There is no indication he explored the possibility of a return to the Regular Air Force.)  It should also be noted that the needs of the service to which a former member applies are paramount in determining whether or not such a waiver is approved.  It appears the applicant chose not to pursue reentry in the Regular Air Force or the Air Force Reserve at that time.

    c.  Based on our findings with respect to the applicant’s separation and absent evidence showing he was miscounseled in any way concerning his ability to resume his military career in 1989, we are not inclined to afford him such extraordinary relief in the form of nearly ten additional years of active duty service credit and advancement in grade from staff sergeant to master sergeant with entitlement to an active duty retirement in that grade.  Accordingly, the applicant’s requests are not favorably considered.

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 this application in Executive Session on 27 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01151:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 02, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/ DPPRRP, dated 18 Nov 03, with
                 attachment. 
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/ DPPRS, dated 4 Aug 03. 
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/ DPSFM, dated 31 Jul 03. 
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Nov 03.
	Exhibit G.  Counsel, dated 19 Nov 04, with
                 Attachments.

									
									Panel Chair