RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-00802 INDEX CODE:	112.10
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be changed to reflect a different reenlistment eligibility (RE) code to enable him to reenlist or join the Reserve.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was led to believe that he could come back into the military if he regained a healthy (deployable) status.

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

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 13 December 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 22. He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 26 May 2003.

On 3 June 2004, the applicant was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for chronic back pain. The IPEB recommended discharge with severance pay with a disability rating of 10%. On 9 June 2004, the applicant non-concurred with the IPEB findings and requested a hearing with the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) with counsel. On 12 August 2004, he waived his rights to a formal hearing and accepted the findings of the IPEB. On 24 August 2004, the Secretary of the Air Force determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued military service and directed he be separated for physical disability under the provisions of title 10 United States Code (USC) 1203, with severance pay computed in accordance with Title
10 USC, Section 1212.

On 12 October 2004, the applicant was honorably discharged after serving 3 years and 10 months of active duty, with an RE code of “4K” (medically disqualified for continued service, or airman is pending evaluation by MEB/PEB) and a Separation Program Designator code of “JFL” (disability, severance pay).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSD recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code to one that would allow reenlistment. DPSD states the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of his separation. However, the correct RE code for a person who is approved for a medical retirement or separation is “2Q” and the separation authority is Air Force Instruction 36-3212. The applicant’s DD Form 214 will be corrected by the appropriate office.

The DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code to one that would allow reenlistment. DPSOA states there is no evidence of error or injustice in this case; however, the applicant’s RE code should be corrected to “2Q” (personnel medically discharged or retired) to more accurately reflect his discharge.

The DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 March 2008, for review and comment 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 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 probable error or injustice. The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused
1.	
their discretionary authority. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, including their correction of his RE code to “2Q”, and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the foregoing and absent evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.

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 10 June 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-00802:

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 08, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 7 Mar 08.
Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 Mar 08. Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Mar 08.