RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01016 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His reentry (RE) code of 4D (Grade is Senior Airman or Sergeant, 
completed at least nine years Total Active Federal Military 
Service (TAFMS), but fewer than 16 years of TAFMS, and has not 
been selected for promotion to Staff Sergeant) be changed to 
allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard (ANG). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He never knew the meaning of the RE code and its affect on his 
ability to reenlist. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the 
Armed Forces of the United States. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 2 Mar 84, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in 
the Regular Air Force. He was progressively promoted to the 
grade of sergeant having assumed that grade effective and with a 
date of rank of 19 Aug 83. He was honorably discharged on 
1 Mar 94. He was credited with 10 years and 28 days of active 
service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant did not 
submit any evidence or identified any errors or injustices in the 
processing of his discharge. Based on the documentation on file 
in the applicant’s military personnel records, his date of 
separation was appropriately administered and within the 
discretion of the discharge authority. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 


 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant 
received the RE code of 4D because at the time of his discharge 
he was a sergeant and did not have a projected promotion date for 
staff sergeant. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant 
on 18 Dec 09, for review and comment within 30 days. 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 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 an error or an injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and the 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of 
proof of the existence of an error or injustice. At the time 
members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an 
RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and 
circumstances of their separation. After a thorough review of 
the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances 
surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in 
accordance with the appropriate directives. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2009-01016 in Executive Session on 6 Apr 10, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 09. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 27 Nov 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 7 Dec 09. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Dec 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair