RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-02678

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 3D (Second term or career Airman who refused to get PCS or TDY assignment retainability) be changed.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He does not know why he was given the RE code 3D that makes him ineligible to reenlist without a waiver.  Since discharged from the Air Force he has applied several times for positions within civilian contract companies that have asked for a copy of his DD Form 214.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force staff sergeant (E-5).

According to AF Form 964, PCS, TDY, or Training Declination Statement, the applicant declined to extend his enlistment or to reenlist to meet the stated requirement.  The applicant initialed notification that he read the rules in AFR 35-16 and 39-29 which deal with the loss of reenlistment and promotion eligibility for airman who sign the form.  The applicant acknowledged he could not reenter the Air Force for 93 days and his chances of enlisting after that period are limited.

On 30 April 1993, according to DD Form 214, the applicant was honorably discharged.  He served 9 years and 22 days total active service and credited with 3 years, 10 months and 25 days of foreign service.  He received a Reentry Code of 3D.  His narrative reason for separation reflects “Expiration Term of Service.”  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the application.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice in reference to the applicant’s RE code based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts.  

While serving an overseas tour in September 1992, the applicant was notified of the requirement to obtain one year of retainability to receive an assignment back to the states and continue his career in the Air Force; his Date of Separation (DOS) at that time was 30 April 1993.  On 2 September 1992, the applicant signed an AF Form 964, PCS, TDY, or Training Declination Statement, declining to reenlist or extend to obtain the required assignment retainability.  The applicant’s counseling on the AF Form 964 that he initialed included notification that he would be ineligible for reenlistment or promotion by signing this form.  Additionally, the applicant acknowledged he could not reenter the Air Force for 93 days and his “chances of enlisting after that period are limited;” which is why a waiver would be required.  By signing the declination statement, the applicant was ineligible to continue his career and was forced to separate on his current (at the time of signing the declination) DOS of 30 April 1993 with an honorable discharge.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 7 April 2022 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSM and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery within the three-year limit, the Board does not find the assertion supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2021-02678 in Executive Session on 30 August 2022:

, Chair, AFBCMR 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 13 July 2021.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 7 April 2022.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 7 April 2022.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.