RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01915 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST: YES 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His reentry (RE) code of 4L (separated commissioning program) be 
changed to RE-12 (recommended for reenlistment). 

 

Examiner’s Note: Code RE-12 is not an Air Force reenlistment 
eligibility code. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

While he was indeed separated from a commissioning program, he 
was highly recommended for reentry. His squadron commander’s 
comment on the USAFA IMT 34, 20050501, V1, Cadet Separation 
Clearance/Referral, states “Cadet J---- has my highest 
recommendation.” His group commander concurred with the 
recommendation. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, 
his USAF IMT 34, 20050501, V1 and honorable discharge 
certificate. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 26 Jan 06, the applicant was honorably discharged from the 
USAF Academy. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ USAFA/A1A makes no recommendation, but does not believe a 
change to his DD Form 214 should be made. A1A states the Office 
of the Under Secretary of Defense signed a memorandum on 
18 Feb 2004 supporting the use of reenlistment eligibility codes 


for former cadets. A1A notes the USAF Academy is a commissioning 
program; therefore, RE-4L is the appropriate code. 

A1A notes each accession source has documentation that can be 
used to waive the 4L code and allow entry. 

 

The complete A1A evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates his earlier contentions and agrees that 
“based on standard procedure” his RE code is correct. However, 
“are there not times that careful discernment and wise counsel 
point to going outside of the guidance standard operating 
procedures to benefit the agencies that defend our nation?” He 
is not requesting a correction to his RE code rather an 
adjustment to another equally appropriate eligibility code. 

 

He seeks entry in the United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard 
will not consider an applicant with a code of RE-3 or RE-4; 
otherwise, he would apply for a waiver. 

 

He has a great desire to serve his country. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the 
applicant requests an adjustment to another equally appropriate 
RE code; however, as pointed by A1A, the RE code assigned is 
appropriate and consistent with Air Force and DoD guidance. It 
appears the applicant’s problem is that the Coast Guard is not 
assigned to the Department of Defense. While regrettable the 
applicant is encountering difficulties in his attempt to enter 
the Coast Guard, there is no equally appropriate RE code this 
Board can assign him. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 


the contrary, we find no 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 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 this application in 
Executive Session on 8 Mar 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603: 

 
 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-01915: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, HQ USAFA/A1A, dated 29 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Jul 11.