RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03038
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reenlistment code he received signifies he was an Airman that was absent without leave (AWOL).  At no time during his enlistment was he AWOL.  He was not aware of the meaning of the RE code until he inquired into enlisting in the XXXXX Air National Guard (ANG).  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 October 1981 for a period of six years.

The applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to initiate discharge action for marginal performance in required training.  The reasons for this action were:

	a.  On 25 January 1982, the applicant was counseled by ATC Form 18, for failure to put forth satisfactory effort and turning in unacceptable work.

	b.  On 1 February 1982, the applicant received an ATC Form 18, for failure to put forth an minimal effort while copying International Morse Code.

	c.  On 10 May 1982, the applicant was disenrolled from Course E3ABR20731, Morse Code, for prejudicial conduct.  The applicant at this time expressed a desire to be discharged from the Air Force.

The commander advised applicant of his right to submit statements in his behalf; and if requested, military legal counsel would be available to aid in the preparation of his statements.

On 19 May 1982, the applicant waived his right to consult legal counsel, but invoked his right to submit statements.

On 15 June 1982, he was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 3, Section B, paragraph 3-81 (Marginal performer assigned to initial training), and was issued an honorable discharge with an RE code of 2P which denotes the servicemember was a marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, BMT eliminees discharged due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions, and so forth.  He served eight months and ten days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states based upon the documentation in the applicant's records, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Based on the evidence provided they recommend the requested relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

EXAMINER'S NOTE: Applicant does not contest the accuracy of the RE code and after reviewing the applicable instruction, AFI 36-2606, it appears the RE code is correct.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 October 2003, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  When the applicant was discharged he received an RE code of “2P” which at that time indicated the applicant was a marginal performer.  However, in 1984, the codes were changed and an RE code of “2P” now reflects that a servicemember was separated under conditions involving being absent without leave (AWOL).  The determination as to which definition should apply is based on the date of separation of the servicemember.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the appropriate directives.  Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.

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 issue(s) 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 Docket Number BC-2003-03038 in Executive Session on 18 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 21 Oct 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.