RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00404 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K” be changed to “A1.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Discharge Review Board (DRB) granted a correction to his discharge characterization from general to honorable, but the RE code was left “3K” meaning it is in the process of being corrected. He wants to reenlist in the Air Force and believes the “3K” RE code is an error. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 2 Jan 02, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 22 Jan 07, the applicant received a general, under honorable conditions, discharge with a narrative reason for separation as “Misconduct,” Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JKN” meaning misconduct—minor infractions, and Reentry code of “2B” meaning discharged under general or other-than-honorable conditions. He was credited with 5 years and 21 days of active service. On 11 Jun 10, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) granted the applicant’s request to upgrade his general, under honorable conditions, discharge to honorable. He was issued an updated DD Form 214 with “Secretarial Authority” as a narrative reason of separation, “JKN” as separation code, and “3K” meaning reserved for use by HQ AFPC or AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies, as reentry code.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The earlier AFDRB change of the RE code referred to the fact that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code “3K” is waiverable by all branches of the service if a member otherwise meets their requirements, not that the applicant has the right to enter the military whenever he decides to; applicant’s reentry in the military would be contingent upon the branch of service wanting to process a waiver for his reentry. The “A1” RE code does not exist in the governing reenlistment guidance for the Regular Air Force. Additionally, the only RE code in the 1# series a member can separate with is “1J— (Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation. All Airmen selected under the SRP and elect separation are given RE code 1J).” The applicant should not be awarded an RE code of “1J,” as his commander recommended him for involuntary discharge which is more in line with being denied reenlistment. Although the DRB concluded the applicant’s original character of service, RE code, and reason for separation were inappropriate, the DRB did note the applicant’s involuntary discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request to change to his reenlistment eligibility. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including attachments, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While we acknowledge the applicant’s request to have his reenlistment eligibility code changed to facilitate his future reenlistment, we do not believe he has demonstrated evidence of an injustice, as compared to others in his similar situation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00404was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 16 Jun 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jun 15.