RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03182

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4E	 be changed to 1J.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code should be changed to allow him to join the Reserves since he was honorably discharged and completed four years of inactive reserve service.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 6 August 2002 separation.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 April 1998, for a period of four years.

On 15 March 2000, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Articles 92 and 108.  Specifically, for failing to obey a lawful order on 1 March 2000, by wrongfully disconnecting the fire alarm in a dormitory room, and without proper authority, willfully damaging by disconnecting the fire alarm, military property of the United States.  After consulting legal counsel, he waived his right to a trial by court-martial and accepted the nonjudicial punishment.  After considering the applicant’s oral and written submissions, on 20 March 2000, the commander determined that he did commit one or more of the alleged offenses and imposed the nonjudicial punishment.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman and forfeiture of $250.00 pay, suspended until 21 May 2000, at which time it would be remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated.  The suspension was conditioned on him submitting to his First Sergeant by 1200 hours on 15 April 2000 and 15 May 2000 a money order made payable to the U.S. Treasury in the amount of 66.29 British sterling for a total of 132.57 British sterling for the damage caused by disconnecting the fire alarm.  He did not appeal the punishment.  

On 20 May 2002, the commander notified him of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for violating Article 92.  Specifically, for being derelict in the performance of his duties by negligently failing to comply with Lakenheath Instruction 32-6002 by wrongfully possessing a pellet gun, a bomb dummy unit, 20 sharpened arrows, 3 silver throwing knives, 2 U.S. government 9mm 15 round magazines, 1 silver throwing star, one silver machete, several black cat fire crackers, 1 pellet rifle, 1 live green smoke grenade, and 1 road flare.  After consulting legal counsel, he waived his right to a trial by court-martial and accepted the nonjudicial punishment.  After considering the applicant’s oral and written submissions, on 24 May 2002, the commander determined that he did commit the alleged offense and imposed the nonjudicial punishment.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman and forfeiture of $619.65 pay.  He did not appeal the punishment.  

He was honorably discharged on 6 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service) and was assigned an RE code of 4E (i.e., Grade is airman first class or below and airman completed 31 or more months). He completed four years of active service, with 3 months and 14 days of prior inactive service.  The DD Form 214 issued in conjunction with his 6 August 2002 separation incorrectly reflected that he was released from active duty in the grade of airman first class; however, the DD Form 214 has been administratively corrected to reflect he was discharged in the grade of airman.

Applicant’s performance profile follows:

         PERIOD ENDING                 OVERALL EVALUATION

           30 May 00 (Referral)                3
           30 May 01                           3

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The AFPC/DPPRSP 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 31 October 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant upgrading the applicant’s RE Code.  After thoroughly reviewing the available evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.  In this respect, the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing instruction in effect at the time of his separation.  The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate that his separation was inappropriate.  His assigned RE code of 4E accurately reflects that he was an airman first class who completed more than 31 months of service at the time of his separation.  Furthermore, while RE code 4E bars immediate reenlistment it is a code that can be waived for prior service enlistment consideration, provided he meets all other requirements for enlistment under an existing prior service program.  Whether or not he is successful will depend on the needs of the service and there is no guarantee that he will be allowed to return to any branch of the service.  Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-03182 in Executive Session on 7 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 8 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.