RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00106
            INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code does not  correctly  reflect  the  decorations  and  awards  she
received as indicated on section 13 of  her  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  Nor does it reflect the  ratings  on
her Airman Performance Reports (APRs).  She filed an Inspector General  (IG)
complaint against SMSgt F--- because of unfair treatment,  which  determined
that he had her kicked out of the military.

In support of her request, applicant provided a copy of  her  DD  Form  214.
Her complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  30  Jan  84.   She  was
progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman,  having  assumed  that
grade effective and with a date of rank of 30 Nov 86.  On  30  Nov  87,  she
was subsequently appointed to noncommissioned officer (NCO) status.   On  28
Jun  90,  applicant's  supervisor  prepared  an  AF  Form   418,   Selective
Reenlistment/Noncommissioned  Officer  Status  Consideration,   recommending
vacation of her NCO status and that she not be  selected  for  reenlistment.
The specific reasons for his action were her inability or  unwillingness  to
fulfill her responsibilities as an NCO; repeated dereliction in  performance
of her duties; her negative attitude towards her responsibilities; and,  her
unwillingness to take the necessary actions to correct  the  situation.   On
29 Jun 90, applicant's  commander  concurred  with  the  recommendation  and
vacated her NCO status.  She was advised of her rights in  this  matter  and
acknowledged receipt on 29 Jun 90.  Applicant did not appeal this  decision.


On 24 Jul 91, applicant's supervisor prepared an AF  Form  418  recommending
that  she  not  be  selected  for   reenlistment.    The   basis   for   his
recommendation  was  her  declining  duty  performance  and  acceptance   of
responsibility; she was given letters of counseling, letters  of  reprimand,
placed on the control roster and removed from NCO status; and she had  shown
no sign of improvement.  On 18 Oct 91,  the  commander  concurred  with  the
supervisor's recommendation and elected to  not  select  her  for  selective
reenlistment.  Applicant was advised  of  her  rights  in  this  matter  and
acknowledged receipt on  18  Oct  91.   Applicant  elected  to  appeal  this
decision.  Her appeal was processed through the appropriate channels and  on
27 Dec 91 the Assistant Deputy Chief  of  Staff  for  Personnel  denied  her
appeal.  Applicant separated from the Air Force on 24 Jan 92 and was  issued
an Honorable Discharge certificate.  She had served 7 years, 11 months,  and
25 days of active duty.

Examiner's note:  RE code 2X denotes "... considered but not selected  under
the Selective Reenlistment Program."  A letter was  submitted  requesting  a
copy of the IG Investigative report pertaining to the applicant and SMSgt F-
---.  No report was available.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Special  Programs  and  AFBCMR  Program  Manager,  AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed
applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPAE states that the  applicant
was denied award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal for the period  30  Jan
87 through 22 Dec 89.  On 28 Jun 90, her commander signed an  AF  Form  418,
denying reenlistment and vacating  her  NCO  status.   On  18  Oct  91,  the
commander again declined  reenlistment  followed  by  the  Assistant  Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel denying an appeal by the applicant.   DPPAE  is
of opinion that the  commander's  action  was  justified  and  she  has  not
satisfactorily indicated the commander’s action was inappropriate or not  in
compliance with Air Force policy (see Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23  Mar
01 for review and response within 30 days.  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 probable error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are  duly
noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence  of  record  or
the rationale provided by the Air Force.  After a  thorough  review  of  the
documentation provided we found no evidence that would lead  us  to  believe
that the actions taken by the responsible officials to effect  the  vacation
of  her  NCO  status  were  improper  or  that  her  commander  abused   his
discretionary authority.  We find no evidence of  error  in  this  case  and
after thoroughly reviewing the documentation  that  has  been  submitted  in
support of  her  appeal,  we  do  not  believe  she  has  suffered  from  an
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 30 May 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Mar 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair