RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01401
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The code given reflects strength reduction.  However, he did not take, nor was he offered a cash incentive from the Air Force for early separation and he did not agree to separate under this condition.  He was separated due to personality conflicts with former superiors.  He was told any attempts to appeal their decision of not allowing him to reenlist would result in hardships.  Basically, they would try to make life extremely difficult for him.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 January 1986 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 24 October 1989, the applicant’s commander and supervisor signed an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration, denying him reenlistment.  His supervisor indicated the applicant had committed a multitude of serious infractions for which he was formally counseled or reprimanded.  The nature of the infractions and actions follow:

	a.  Two separate notifications for delinquency of NCO Club account, 60 days - 20 May 1989 and 90 days - 20 June 1989.

	b. Memo for record for a returned check - 29 August 1989.

	c. Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go - 6 September 1989.

	d. Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing a room inspection - 28 September 1989.

	e. LOC for failing a room inspection - 1 October 1989.

	f. LOR for failing a room inspection - 2 October 1989.

The supervisor further indicated these weren’t acceptable standards of behavior for Air Force members and did not recommend retention.  The commander indicated he concurred with the comments of the supervisor.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the official notification of nonselection for reenlistment and did not appeal the decision.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 4 January 1990 in the grade of senior airman under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Early Separation Program - Strength Reduction).  He received an RE code of “2X.”  He served four years and three days of total active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated according to AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, the appropriate RE code is 2X for individuals considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP).  Based on the documentation on file, there are no errors or injustices that caused an injustice to the applicant.  The separation complies with directives in effect at the time of his discharge.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices which occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change to his RE code.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 May 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice.  The Board believes that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  As a result, the applicant’s RE code accurately reflects that he was considered but not selected for reenlistment.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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 29 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01401 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 April 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Military Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 May 2004.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 2004.