RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02219
		INDEX CODE:  112.00, 128.05,
					 131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 JUN 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty; his records be corrected to show “reenlistment” versus “reentry;” supplemental promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6); and, any other entitlements for the lost active duty time.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record is unjust due to the fact all of his attempts to extend and reenlist were ignored and he was involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 1J.  His involuntary discharge caused a loss of over five years of Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS).

An erroneous code was placed on his DD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment document, preventing him from being eligible for a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) entitlement and recoupment of time lost when he reentered the Air Force.  His peers [enlisted during the 1991-1993 timeframe and still on active duty] have achieved the ranks of E-5 and E-6.

In support of his request, the applicant submits two DD Form 149s, copies of his DD Form 214, DD Forms 4/1, AF Form 418 (Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration), documents concerning his Inspector General (IG) complaints and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 October 2003, the applicant requested his 15 June 2003 application be withdrawn.  On 3 May 2004, the applicant resubmitted his appeal for consideration by the Board.

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 9 April 1992 for a period of four years.  The applicant’s 12 July 1994 request for an extension of his current enlistment, for a period of 11 months, was approved on 15 July 1994, which changed his date of separation (DOS) of 8 April 1996 to 8 March 1997.

The following information was extracted from applicant’s submission.

On 29 May 1996, the applicant submitted a second Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve (AF Form 1411) requesting his current enlistment of 9 April 1992 be extended a period of ten months for the purpose of qualifying for a CONUS Permanent Change of Station (PCS) assignment.  On 31 May 1996, his unit commander recommended disapproval of the extension.  Applicant submitted a response to the extension denial on 18 June 1996.

On 15 August 1996, the applicant was considered and not recommended for reenlistment due to his numerous verbal and written counselings, a Letter of Admonishment for making an inaccurate statement, and a Letter of Reprimand for disobeying an order (AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration).  He was nonselected for reenlistment by his unit commander due to the numerous infractions, his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 8 December 1995, and noncompliance with standards.  On 20 August 1996, the applicant acknowledged the nonselection for reenlistment and, on 28 August 1996, submitted his appeal of the reenlistment denial.  On 25 October 1996, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient for forwarding to the appellate authority for a final decision.  The appellate authority approved the denial for reenlistment.

Applicant’s military personnel records reveal that, on 8 March 1997, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (completion of active required service).  He had completed a total of 4 years and 11 months and was serving in the grade of senior airman (E-4) at the time of separation.  He received an RE Code of 1J, which defined means "Eligible to reenlist but elects separation."

On 16 January 2000, the applicant was relieved from his assignment with HQ ARPC, Obligated Reserve Section, and honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve.

On 17 October 2002, the applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force in the grade of E-4 for a period of four years.  He was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 December 2003.

On 24 April 2003, the applicant filed an Inspector General (IG) inquiry concerning his reenlistment classification and its associated issues.  On 19 May 2003, SAF/IG notified the applicant that they were unable to favorably act on his 24 April 2003 Inspector General (IG) complaint due to time limits imposed on IG actions.  SAF/IG suggested the applicant appeal to the AFBCMR for possible relief.  On 9 July 2003, in response to the applicant’s 4 June 2003 electronic mail (e-mail) to SAF/IG concerning his reenlistment status, SAF/IG suggested his proper course of action was to seek relief through the AFBCMR.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPAOR states the applicant’s service dates and date of rank to the grade of E-4 are correct.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAOR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application concerning his RE code be denied.  DPPAE states the commander’s action to nonselect the applicant for reenlistment in 1996 was justified.  The applicant received a promotion recommendation of “3” on his latest EPR and received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to obey a direct order in June 1995.  DPPAE notes that errors were made in this case.  Specifically, the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) failed to update the correct RE code of 2X [Defined means “Considered but not selected under the SRP (Selective Reenlistment Program)”], based on the nonselection for reenlistment and the applicant’s DD Form 214 also reflects the incorrect RE code of “1J” instead of “2X.”  DPPAE states the applicant reentered the Air Force, effective 17 October 2002, based on an incorrect RE code.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application concerning promotion consideration for earlier cycles be denied.  DPPPWB states that, based on the applicant’s original date of rank (DOR) to senior airman (E-4) of 9 April 1995, the first time he would have normally been eligible for promotion consideration to E-5 was cycle 97E5.  However, due to his 8 March 1997 separation date, he was ineligible.  In addition, the applicant separated from active duty before testing for the cycle even started (April - June 1997).  Based on the applicant’s reentry date of 17 October 2002 and adjusted DOR to E-4 of 17 November 2001, the first time he was eligible for promotion consideration to E-5 was cycle 03E5 (promotions effective 1 September 2003 - 1 August 2004).  The applicant was selected for promotion and received a DOR of 1 December 2003.  The first time he will be eligible for promotion consideration to E-6 will be cycle 06E6 (promotions effective 1 August 2006 - 1 July 2007).  The applicant is not entitled to promotion consideration for any earlier cycles as he was not on active duty between 8 March 1997 and 17 October 2002.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 27 August 2004 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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.  In this respect, we note the applicant appealed the commander’s decision to nonrecommend him for reenlistment to the group commander.  After obtaining a legal review, the group commander upheld the squadron commander’s decision and the applicant was ultimately separated.  In addition, we note the applicant’s reentry into the Air Force was based on an erroneous reenlistment eligibility code.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility.  Other than the incorrect RE code, the separation appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Instruction and we find no evidence to indicate the applicant’s release from active duty was inappropriate or that he was not afforded all the rights to which entitled in appealing the commander’s decision.  We, therefore, agree with the opinions and recommendations of the respective Air Force offices and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s requests for reinstatement, supplemental promotion consideration and other entitlements that he believes would have accrued had he continued to serve on active duty during the break in his service are 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 19 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-02219.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jun 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 8 Jun 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 Jul 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Aug 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 04.