RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00287 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His reentry code (RE) 4D (grade is Senior Airman or Sergeant, 
completed at least 9 years TAFMS, but fewer than 16 years TAFMS, 
and has not been selected for promotion to Staff Sergeant) be 
changed to a code that will not bar him from enlisting in the 
Air Force. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His reentry code of 4D is unjust because his character of 
service was honorable. He is no longer eligible to enlist in 
the Air Force because of his reentry code. At the time of his 
separation, he did not realize that his RE code would bar him 
from enlisting. He would not have taken the early out option. 
He is still eligible to serve his country at his current age and 
his reenlistment code is the only thing barring him from 
enlisting. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 20 August 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force. He was progressively promoted to the grade of Staff 
Sergeant (E-5). He was reduced to the grade of Sergeant (E-4) 
as a result of an Article 15. He was released from active duty 
under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-10, Enlisted 
Personnel Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 3, 
Strength Reduction – First Term Airman – Voluntary, on 
20 September 1991. He received an honorable discharge and was 
credited with serving 12 years, 1 month and 1 day on active 
duty. 

 


________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant has 
not submitted evidence of an error or injustice with the 
discharge process. The applicant’s separation from the Air 
Force was authorized by the prescribing regulation and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states RE code 4D is driven 
by his rank of Sergeant (E-4) and 12 years in service without 
having a projected promotion to Staff Sergeant (E-5). 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 24 June 2011, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has received no 
response. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 are not persuaded by the evidence 
submitted in his appeal that a change in his RE code is 
warranted. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility, and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. In the absence of persuasive 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 Docket Number BC- 
2011-00287 in Executive Session on 28 July 2011 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 10 May 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jun 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Chair