* 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01319 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE) code  and  separation  program 
designator  (SPD) code be  changed so that he may reenter the Air 
Force. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He takes full responsibility for the reprimand he got for being 
late, but  there were mitigating circumstances involved with the 
Article 15. His supervisor did not want him  in IIhis" Air Force. 
He was young and has grown, serving honorably for seven years in 
the  Army  National  Guard  and  obtaining  a  college  degree. These 
codes  have  hindered  his  opportunities  in  the  military  long 
enough. 

A copy of applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit 
A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 September 
1988 for a period of four years. 
The reprimand applicant refers to is no longer in the available 
records.  He  received  an  Article  15  on  20  November  1989  for 
failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 30 October 1989. 
The Article 15 indicates he provided a written presentation, but 
that too is no longer a matter of record.  The punishment imposed 
was reduction from airman to airman basic with a date of rank of 
20 November  1989. Applicant  did not  appeal. The Article  15 was 
filed in his Unfavorable Information File. 
On  11 January 1990,  he was nonrecommended for reenlistment. The 
supervisor  indicated  on  the  AF 
(Selective 
Reen1 is tmen t/Noncommissioned  Officer  S t a  tus  Considera tion)  that 
the applicant required constant supervision, had a 50% error rate 
in one of his primary responsibilities, and had to be reprimanded 
on  several  occasions  on  his  relaxed  safety  practices.  The 
commander concurred, stating the applicant had not  demonstrated 

Form  418 

the capability to maintain Air Force standards. The AF  Form 418 
indicates  the  applicant  intended  to  appeal  the  nonselection; 
however, if he submitted a rebuttal it  is no longer a matter of 
record. 
The applicant was honorably discharged on 15 March  1 9 9 0   in the 
grade  of  airman.  His  RE  was  II2X" 
( F i r s t / s e c o n d / c a r e e r   airman 
considered  b u t   not  selected  f o r  reenlistment  under  the  selective 
reenlistment  program)  and  his  SPD  code  was  IrK23I1 
( E a r l y  
s e p a r a t i o n  program  -  s t r e n g t h   r e d u c t i o n ) .  He had 1 year, 5 months 
and 2 7   days of active service. 
The  applicant was  given  a waiver by  the Washington  State Army 
National Guard and enlisted on 15 November 1 9 9 0 .   After 7  years of 
service,  he  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Army  Guard  on 
14 November 1 9 9 7   with a r l l l l   RE code. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Military  Personnel  Management  Specialist,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS, 
or 
reviewed  the  case  and  stated.that  there  are  no  errors 
The 
irregularities  causing  an  injustice  to  the  applicant. 
The 
discharge  complied  with  directives  in  effect  at  the  time. 
and 
records  indicate  his  military  service  was  reviewed 
appropriate action was  taken. Applicant  has  not  identified 
any 
SPD 
specific errors or provide facts warranting a changing in the 
code.  Denial is recommended. 

A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

The Chief, Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, also reviewed 
this appeal and states that the applicant signed the AF Form 418 
acknowledging  his  nonselection  for  reenlistment.  There  is  no 
evidence  he  submitted an appeal within  the  required timeframe. 
Denial  is  recommended.  If  the  Board  grants  relief,  the  Chief 
suggests the  RE  code  of  I I 3 K . "  
[ H o w e v e r ,   the  'I3Krr  RE  code  a s  
("Reserved  f o r   u s e   by  HQ  AFMPC  or  the  AFBCMRII) 
d e f i n e d   by  DPPAE 
d i d   not  come  i n t o   existence  u n t i l   J u l y   1991,  a f t e r   the  a p p l i c a n t  
was  discharged.  A t   the  t i m e   of  a p p l i c a n t ' s   discharge,  rr3K1r meant 
i n   the  grade  o f   Senior 
rrSecond  term/career  airman, 
Airman,  who  has  not  yet  been  appointed  t o  NCO  s t a t u s . I r   Therefore, 
another  RE  code  would  have  t o  be  used.] 
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

s e r v i n g  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  applicant reviewed the  evaluations and  asserts that  had  he 
stayed in the Air  Force under his  supervisor, who did not  like 
him, he believed he would have left the Air Force under less than 
honorable  conditions.  He  should  have  rebutted  the  RE  code  his 
biased  supervisor arranged for him, but  he was an impatient 19- 

2 

98-01319 

year-old kid and simply failed to do it.  His honorable discharge 
contradicts the RE  code he  received. This is an  injustice that 
needs  to  be  reconciled.  He  asks  that  the  advisory  authors 
reconsider their recommendations to deny his appeal. 

Applicant's complete rebuttal is at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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  probable  error  or  injustice  to 
warrant changing the discharge codes in question. We commend the 
applicant for his honorable service with the Army National Guard 
and  for  obtaining  a  college  degree.  However,  after  careful 
consideration, we find neither his nonselection for reenlistment 
in the Air Force nor the narrative reason given for his discharge 
from that service in 1990  to be  in error or unjust.  While the 
applicant  has  obviously matured  since  separating  from  the  Air 
Force, the fact remains that at the time he did not maintain Air 
Force standards.  Other than his own  assertions, he has provided 
no evidence that he was discriminated against by  his supervisor 
or anyone else.  If the applicant wishes to serve his country, we 
suggest he continue his career with the Army. As an aside, while 
an RE code in the  rr211 series normally precludes reenlistment in 
the Regular Air Force, we  are aware that on very rare occasions 
the  Air  Force  Reserve/Air  National  Guard  may  waive  an 
individual s 112r1 RE  code if  they believe  that person  possesses 
critical skills and abilities they need. The applicant may wish 
to pursue  this possibility. Otherwise, in view of the above and 
absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

THE 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. 

3 

98-013 19 

a 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 3 December 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair 
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member 
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 May 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Jun 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 29 Jun 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Jul 98. 
Exhibit F.  Electronic Mailgram, Applicant, dated 9 Aug 98. 

BARBARA A. 
-  Panel Chair 

4 

98-013 19