RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00568
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Separation Code of “JBK,” discharged after completion of required service, be changed.

Her “2X” Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code, “First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP” be changed to allow her reenlistment in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her nonselection for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) was motivated by a personal conflict between she and her chain of command.

She only received one letter of counseling (LOC) from the supervisor that nonrecommended her for reenlistment.  The LOC noted that her work performance lacked motivation.  However, this is illogical since she was on a medical waiver at the time.  He disregarded her work limitations and she was ordered to continue her flight-line duties while she was pregnant.

In a two-page statement, applicant provides an account of her efforts to appeal her reenlistment denial.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 22 Jul 99 as a weapons load crewmember.  The applicant received two enlisted performance reports (EPRs) during her active service with overall ratings of four and three.  On 7 Jun 02, the applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment.  On 11 Jun 02, the applicant’s commander did not select her for reenlistment.  The applicant was discharged on 21 Jul 03 with an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s appeal.  They opine that the commander’s decision to deny the applicant reenlistment was justified.  She has not provided evidence to show that the commander’s action was inappropriate.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 Apr 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Although the applicant states that she was not recommended for reenlistment due to personal conflict between her and her flight supervision, we note that the approval authority was the squadron commander and that the decision was upheld on appeal by the group commander.  Given the incidents documented on the AF Form 418 and the subsequent legal review prepared on the applicant’s appeal, we do not find the actions of the applicant’s chain of command to have constituted error or injustice.  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-2004-00568 in Executive Session on 24 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 19 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 04.