RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01479
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED 

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 SEP 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed and the separation program designator (SPD) be removed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code “2U” is assigned to personnel who served at least 20 years.  He did not serve 12 years of active duty without being promoted and should not have been forced to separate.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 22 May 1980, and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman.  On 30 January 1991, he was separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (overseas returnee lacks retainability for assignment), with an honorable discharge.  

He received an RE code of 2U ”Airman possesses a high year of tenure (HYT) date of at least 20 years total active federal military service (TAFMS), is within 23 months of HYT date, and more than 13 months remaining until date of separation.”  He received an SPD of JBM “Overseas returnee lacks retainability for assignment.”  He served a total of 11 years, 1 month, and 9 days total active duty service.

On 14 May 1990, the Air Force announced personnel policy changes and actions necessary for transitioning to a smaller force.  The HYT for sergeant (E-4) was reduced from 20 to 10 years effective 1 August 1991, which allowed all affected personnel two additional promotion opportunities.  

DPPAE reviewed the case and determined that applicant’s RE code should be changed to 4D “Grade is senior airman or sergeant, completed at least 9 years TAFMS, but fewer than 16 years TAFMS, and has not been selected for promotion to staff sergeant.”  His records will be corrected when the case is returned from the Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states the airman who are considered for PCS in a mandatory move status such as during base closure, unit deactivation, or when it is determined to be in the best interest of the Air Force and found ineligible because they have too little service retainability may be separated PETS.  Airman are qualified for separation when they have less than 12 months retainability and refuse to obtain the retainability or are ineligible to obtain retainability for a permanent change of station (PCS).  The applicant was not selected for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant and he had more than 10 years of active military service.  His date effective return from overseas was 30 June 1991 and his date of separation was 30 June 1991, based on the fact he had served on active duty for more than 10 years, but less than 16 years.  He had insufficient retainability for the PCS move back to the United States.  His SPN was established as JBM and is correct.

The DPPRS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 June 2007, for review and comment 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 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 to warrant changing his SPD code.  The Board notes the applicant’s RE code is incorrect and will be administratively corrected to reflect a code of 4D “Grade is senior airman or sergeant, completed at least nine years TAFMS, but fewer than 16 years TAFMS, and has not been selected for promotion to staff sergeant.”  After careful consideration of the available evidence, the Board found no indication that the actions taken to affect his discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations at the time, or that the actions taken against the applicant were unjust.  Therefore, the Board agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2007-01479 in Executive Session on 2 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Memo, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Jun 07, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAFMRBR, dated 20 Jun 07.