RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02020
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation code of “LBK” (completion of required active service, and denied reenlistment with half separation pay) be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation code “LBK” should be changed since his RE code of 2X was corrected by the AFBCMR.  This is required to facilitate correcting the separation pay he received at discharge.  His original RE code and evaluation are a direct result of reprisal from his commanding officer, due to his Air Force level complaint regarding Fraud, Waste and Abuse.  

In support of his appeal, applicant submits an email to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) requesting a correction to his separation pay; a copy of the DFAS evaluation from his AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-00941 case file, and other previous AFBCMR case information. 

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 Feb 96, applicant was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of completion of required active service, and was issued an RE code of 2X.  He was credited with 9 years, 11 months, and 26 days of active duty service.  

On 14 Feb 99, applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve under the provisions of AFR 35-41.

In an application, dated 16 Jun 05, the applicant requested his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2X (first-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) be changed to a code which would enable him to enlist in the Air National Guard.  By majority vote the Board recommended his application be denied; however, the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency determined that he should be afforded a second chance to serve and directed his RE code be changed to “3K.”  

In his application, BC-2007-00941, it appears the applicant requested a correction to his RE/SRB he received at separation.  However, after considering the evidence provided, the Board determined it was insufficient to find an error or injustice and denied the application.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOS reviewed this application and recommends denial.  The High Year of Tenure (HYT) at the time of the applicant’s separation from the Air Force was 10 years of total active service.  In order to separate under HYT, with entitlement to full separation pay, the member must be fully qualified for retention, other than being denied continuation due to HYT, and must remain eligible for promotion.

The original separation code of “LBK” authorized the applicant half separation pay at the time of his discharge.  DPSOS does not view the Board’s decision to change the applicant’s RE code to “3K” as a mandate to also change his separation code.  They may elect to make no further change to the applicant’s current separation code, or the Board could direct the applicant’s separation code be changed to “LCC” which is an appropriate code for separation under HYT which would authorize the applicant full separation pay.  Additionally, the Board could direct his separation code be changed to “KFF” with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority” and further direct whether recoupments of his separation pay is appropriate.

HQ AFPC/DPSOS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSOA notes applicant’s RE code was corrected to “3K,” and recommends no further action surrounding his RE code.  If the applicant was paid a separation bonus as a result of the previous 2X RE code, then they recommend the Board consider waiving such debt if recoupment actions have been initiated.

HQ AFPC/DPSOA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 21 Nov 08 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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.  After reviewing the previous decision by the Board, the applicant’s RE code was changed to “3K” to afford him another opportunity to serve, as a matter of clemency, not as a result of being the victim of an error or injustice associated to any evidence of reprisal.  It appears the applicant now believes the resulting change to his RE code is a mandate for changing his reason for separation, along with the corresponding separation code.  However, the applicant’s reason for separation and the separation code of “LBK” reflects that he completed the required active service and was denied reenlistment with entitlement to half separation pay.  Considered alone, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and the reason for separation was appropriate to the existing circumstances.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02020 in Executive Session on 8 January 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Sep 07, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 29 Sep 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 Oct 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 08.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair