. 

c 

I 

ADDENDUM 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 3 - 0 2 4 5 1  
COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION 
HEARING DESIRED:  YBS 

AUG  1 6  I995 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

~~ 

His Reenlistment Eligibility  (RE) code 2X be changed and that he 
be  reinstated to active duty in the branch  of  his  choice, with 
back pay and allowances. 

On 17 April  1 9 9 3 ,   the AFBCMR considered applicant's request that 
his Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR)  closing 23  December 1 9 9 1  be 
voided from his records or, in the alternative, that the overall 
rating  be  changed. 
The  AFBCMR  recommended  that  the  overall 
Promotion  Recommendation  rating  on  the  contested  report  be 
upgraded  from  'l2I1  to  I r 3 . "   On 2 9   July 1 9 9 3 ,   the Deputy for Air 
Force  Review  Boards  accepted  the  Board's  recommendation  and 
directed  applicant's records  be  corrected  accordingly  (Exhibit 
C) 
On  16  February  1 9 9 4 ,   the  AFBCMR  considered  and  denied  the 
applicant's requests that his RE Code 2X be  changed and that he 
be  reinstated to active duty in the branch of  his  choice, with 
back pay and allowances.  (Exhibit A through D) 
Applicant has submitted numerous letters, including a letter from 
his member of Congress, requesting reconsideration of his request 
that his RE Code be changed and that he be  reinstated to active 
duty in the branch of his choice. 

In his 2 2   February 1 9 9 4   letter, applicant contends that his 
official training records were not properly maintained during the 
reporting periods which were the cause of his eventual separation 
from active duty. 

In his  2 2   February 1 9 9 4   letter, applicant asserts that his 
immediate supervisor did not sign the AF Form 418,  as required by 
AFR 3 5 - 1 6 .   He also contends that his last EPR, which compromised 
his ability to reenlist, was upgraded by the AFBCMR.  Applicant 
further contends that when  he  was  considered  for reenlistment, 
derogatory statements from his first enlistment were still in his 
Personal Information File  (PIF) after his change of duty station. 

In addition to documentation presented with his earlier appeals, 
applicant  provided  a  copy  of  his  training  records;  copies  of 
letters  of  recommendation/character  references  regarding  his 
entrance  into  the  Army  (1990);  letters  of  appreciation;  an 
Inspector General Action Request concerning the documents in his 
Personal  Information  File  (PIF);  applicant's  letter  to  his 
squadron commander; three certificates awarding him an Associate 
of  Arts  Degree  (1 Aug  1990) ,  a Bachelor of  Arts Degree  (1 Jan 
1992) , and an Associate Degree in Applied Science (14 Jan 1992). 
He  also provided  a  copy of  a  letter concerning his  performance 
and a copy of his current grade report.  His complete submissions 
are at Exhibit E. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS : 
Applicant  initially enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 May 
1985.  He reenlisted on 2 March 1989 for a period of four years. 
He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  senior  airman 
(E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 30 Septembe 1987 and 
was subsequently appointed a sergeant  (E-4).  On 31 August  1992, 
he was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the 
Air Force Reserve, under the provisions of AFR  39-10  (expiration 
of  term of  active obligated service) ,  having  served  7 years, 3 
months and 2 days of active duty.  He received an RE Code of  2X, 
which  reflects  that  he  was  a  second-term  airman  who  was 
considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective 
Reenlistment Program.  He is currently assigned to the Inactive 
Reserves. 

An  AF  Form  418,  contained in the  applicant's records, reflects 
that, on 4 February 1992, he was not recommended or selected for 
reenlistment.  The supervisor stated applicant's performance had 
fluctuated over the past four years and showed a downward trend. 
He  further  stated  the  applicant  was  not  representative of  the 
quality  force when  compared with  other  airmen being  considered 
for selective reenlistment.  The  unit  commander concurred with 
the  supervisor's recommendation and did not  recommend applicant 
for continued retention in the Air  Force.  On  7 February 1992, 
applicant  indicated  that  he  intended  to  appeal  this  decision. 
The commander's decision to deny reenlistment was upheld by  the 
appeal authority on 25 March  1992.  On 31 March 1992,  applicant 
acknowledged  receipt  of  notification  that  his  appeal  had  been 
denied. 

A resume of applicant's APRs/EPRs follows: 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

29 May 86 
19 Dec 86 
19 Dec 87 

8 
9 
8 

2 

. 

19 Dec 88 
19 Dec 89  (EPR) 
19 Dec 90 
*  19 Dec 91 

9 
3 
4 
3  (Report was upgraded by AFBCMR 

from an overall promotion 
recommendation rating of " 2 "  
to f f 3 " )  

co WSEJt ' S REVIEW OF APPJiICANT ' S BEOUESTS : 
Counsel  reviewed  the  requests  for  reconsideration and  supports 
applicant's contention that there is strong reason to believe the 
now-upgraded  EPR  may  have  had  a  direct  effect  on  applicant's 
appeal  of  the  reenlistment  bar.  He  further  stated  that  the 
letters of support which resulted in the earlier favorable AFBCMR 
decision do tend to support this belief. 

Counsel%  complete response is at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  After  a  thorough  review  of  the  applicant's statements and 
additional documents submitted in support of his appeal to change 
his  RE  code  and  reinstate  him  to  active  duty,  we  are  not 
persuaded that his nonselection for reenlistment was unjust or in 
error.  We noted that many of the issues raised by the applicant 
and  the  documents  he  submitted  pertained  to  the  EPR  closing 
19 December 1991, which was upgraded in an earlier appeal to the 
AFBCMR.  Applicant contends that this EPR was the reason for the 
denial of  his reenlistment.  While  this report may  have been a 
contributing factor, it apparently was not the sole basis for the 
commander's decision to nonselect the applicant for reenlistment. 
Furthermore, merely  because the  rating on the  cited  report was 
upgraded from a  1r211 to a  Ir3",  this fact alone does not mandate a 
finding that the contested RE code was improper. 

2.  In assessing cases of this nature, we choose not to disturb 
the  discretionary  judgments  of  commanding  officers  absent  a 
strong  showing  of  abuse  of  that  authority.  We  have  no  such 
showing here.  After reviewing the information provided, we found 
no  evidence  that  the  commander's decision  to  nonselection the 
applicant  for  reenlistment  because  of  his  fluctuating  and 
downward  trend  in duty performance  over a  four-year period  was 
based on erroneous information.  Nor were we persuaded that the 
AF  Form  418  (Selective  Reenlistment/Noncommissioned  Officer 
Status Consideration) denying him reenlistment was initiated and 
signed by  anyone other than the officials authorized to do so. 
We believe it should be noted that, in an independent review, the 
commander%  decision was upheld by  a superior commander.  Based 
on  the  foregoing,  and  in  the  absence  of  persuasive  evidence 

3 

showing  the  applicant's commanders  abused  their  discretionary 
authority, that his substantial rights were violated, or that the 
RE code assigned was contrary to the provisions of the governing 
regulation,  we  conclude  that  no  basis  exists  to  change  the 
previous decision to deny the applicant's request. 

3.  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. 

BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 28  February 1995, under  the provisions of 
AFR 31-3: 

David W. Hinton, Panel Chairman 
John T. Dorsett, Member 
John H. Lynskey, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 2 Jul 93, 9, 10 and 1 7   Sep 
Exhibit B e  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR 92-01959 

93, w/atchs. 

dated 29 Jul 93, w/o exhibits. 

Exhibit D.  Letter from C/M Bateman, dated 8 Sep 93, w/atchs. 
Exhibit E.  Letters, Applicant, dated 22, 23, 24, 26 and 
28 Feb 94, 12, 22 and 23 Jun 94, 1 0 ,   19 and 
29 Jul 94, 29 Sep 94, 1 3   Oct 94, 16, 21 and 
3 0   Jan 95, 4 Feb 95, and letter from C/M Bateman, 
dated 16 Mar 94, 

Exhibit F.  Counsel's Statement, dated 26 Jan 95. 

DAVID w. E~INTON 
Panel Chairman 

4