RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02067
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  2 JANUARY 2009

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was a single parent at the time of her separation.  She was not given any explanation for the RE code given and was unaware of its implication.  She is currently in the process of enlisting in the Oklahoma Army National Guard.  There were no disciplinary actions against her at the time of her separation.  

In support of her request, applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214. 

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 March 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years.  During this period of service, she was progressively promoted to airman first class (E-3).  

From 28 November 1991 to 2 December 1991, she was charged with being absent without leave.  On 18 December 1991, nonjudicial punishment was imposed upon the applicant under Article 15, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), reducing the applicant to the grade of airman basic.  

On 29 April 1994, applicant’s supervisor prepared an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration, and did not recommend her for reenlistment based on documented deficiencies in her performance and acceptance of responsibility.  On 2 May 1994, the applicant’s commander concurred with the recommendation and rendered her ineligible for reenlistment.  

Applicant was honorably discharged on 17 March 1995, after serving 4 years on active duty.  An RE code 2X (First-term airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP) was assigned.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied.  DPPAE advises that the applicant’s commander did not recommend her for reenlistment and the applicant opted not to appeal the commanders decision.  No error or injustice is present to support the change request.  The AFPC/DPPAE complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 August 2007, for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response. 

________________________________________________________________

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 that would warrant a change to her RE code.  We agree with the opinion of the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the RE code which was assigned at the time of her separation accurately reflects the circumstance of her separation and evidence has not been provided that would lead us to believe otherwise.  In the absence of evidence to indicate that the information contained in her records is erroneous or that her commander abused his discretionary authority, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  However, should the applicant provide evidence pertaining to her post service activities, testimonials of friends and responsible citizens who know her, she may, of course, submit a request for a change of her RE code based on clemency at a later time.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2007-02067 in Executive Session on 12 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-02067 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 07, w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 25 Jul 07.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Aug 07.