RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01726
		INDEX CODE:  112.10
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation code of KND (discharge) be changed to read MND (release from active duty) and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed to 1J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation was voluntary.  He had a letter from a potential civilian employer stating that if he was released from active duty military service he would be given a position.  He wants to enlist in the Air National Guard and serve his country honorably, as he did during his prior time in service.  He was not aware of the disparaging RE code.  In support of the application, the applicant submits his application.  The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 January 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 22 and reenlisted on 24 February 1994 for a period of 4 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 10 November 1992.  On 15 November 1996, he was notified by his commander that he was not being recommended for promotion to Staff Sergeant because he refused to comply with the requirements of Airman Leadership School (ALS).  On 14 January 1997, he was denied receipt of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal for the period of 4 November 1996 through 15 November 1996.

The following is a resume of his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), commencing with the report closing 29 September 1992.

	PERIOD ENDING	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

	29 Sep 1992		5
	29 Sep 1993 		4
	29 Sep 1994		4
	15 May 1995		5
	15 May 1996		3
	30 Apr 1997		3

On 21 January 1997, the applicant was not recommended for reenlistment by his supervisor because he refused to comply with ALS requirements.  The applicant’s commander concurred with the supervisor’s requested action.  The applicant elected not to appeal this action.

On 1 August 1997, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (miscellaneous/general reasons) with an honorable discharge, a separation code of KND and an RE code of 2X (first term second term airman, or career airman considered by not selected for reenlistment under the SRP).  He had served 6 years, 6 months, and 22 days on active duty. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states the discharge and separation code are consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS opines the separation was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and separation code and narrative reason for separation are correct.  DPPRS notes the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his separation or RE code.  

DPPRS states a Records Transmittal Request on file indicates applicant submitted an Airman’s Request for Early Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation; however, the request is not on file in the applicant’s master personnel records.  The applicant’s voluntary request to separate effective 1 August 1997 was approved.  DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force Evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment on 25 June 2004.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting changes to the applicant’s reenlistment code and narrative reason for his separation.  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 RE and separation codes predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE and separation codes issued were in accordance with the appropriate directives.  Absent evidence by the applicant showing the contrary, we find no basis to favorably consider his request.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 4 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01726:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 04.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Jun 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 04.