RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02646
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was an asset to the Air Force when she was on active duty.  She will be even more of an asset to the National Guard if her RE code is changed.  She misses serving her country and would very much like to do so again.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of her DD Form 214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 June 1989.  She was promoted to the grade of airman first class on 20 October 1990, and the grade of senior airman on 20 June 1992.  She received six enlisted performance reports (EPRs) closing 19 February 1991, 20 December 1991, 20 December 1992, 20 December 1993, 20 December 1994, and 20 December 1995, in which the overall evaluations were “3,” “4,” “4,” “4,” “4,” and “4.”

Applicant was released from active duty on 2 December 1996, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Completion of Required Active Service, in the grade of senior airman with an honorable character of service.  She served 7 years, 5 months and 11 days on active duty.  She was issued an RE code of 2X, First-term airman considered but not selected under Selective Reenlistment Program.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  They conducted a review of the applicant’s personnel file and considered all documentation submitted by the applicant.  Based on the quality of the applicant’s records and supporting documentation on the Record Review Rip (RRR) dated 2 November 1996, it is clearly evident that the applicant was not recommended for continued military service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that she really wants to be able to join the Air National Guard.  She would be a real asset to the Air National Guard.  She made a real contribution to the Air Force when she was on active duty.  She did her job and did it well.  She was never a disciplinary problem.  Her only major flaw was her weight, but that never hindered her ability to do her job.  In fact, she did it better and took it more seriously than the majority of her fellow airmen, without complaint.  If today’s weight and physical fitness regulations were in place she would have never been on the weight program and it would not be an issue now.  She has grown and matured even more since she got out of the service.  She feels she would contribute even more now and be a real asset to the Air National Guard.  The Air Force is a part of her and she knows that is where she belongs.  She is asking that her reenlistment code be change so she can once again be where she belongs, a part of the Air Force.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 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 this application in Executive Session on 2 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 04, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 22 Sep 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 1 Nov 04.