RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03151

            INDEX CODE:  100.00


            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  be  changed  so  that  he  may
reenlist in the military.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unaware of the relevance of the RE code  contained  on  his  DD
Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active  Duty).   He
was very young and immature upon enlistment in the Air Force.  He  was
not mature enough to sustain and cope with an assignment to Clark  AB,
Philippines.  It was not that he did not like the Air Force but it was
a matter of immaturity.  His wife was very miserable  and  the  stress
compiled until he felt his only option was separation.  He is  now  32
years old with two children and his family and he are  very  respected
members of their community.

Applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 Jun 87, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  (RegAF)
for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 21 Jun 88, the applicant requested that he be separated as soon  as
possible in accordance with AFR 39-10, Chapter 3, Section C, paragraph
3-19.  The reason for his request was as follows: Since he has been in
the Philippines, he has not had a good night sleep,  accompanied  with
severe depression caused from his job and the  Philippines.   Also,  a
loss of appetite and a lack of sleep had resulted in a weight loss  of
25 pounds.  He felt as though he could not cope with  the  place,  his
job, and/or the Air Force.  He felt he should be separated so his wife
and himself could start over, to build a new concrete  foundation  for
themselves.  He knows he will never be able to  go  back  to  the  Air
Force knowing how he feels.  He had serious  problems  he  felt  could
better be resolved outside the Air Force, at his home of residence.  A
separation from the Air Force would help his wife and him in the  long
run  to  help  him  recuperate  from   several   long-term   problems.
Therefore, a separation as soon  as  possible  would  save  a  lot  of
hardship for his family, himself, and the Air Force in general.

On 8 Jul 88, the commander recommended the applicant be separated from
the Air Force.  The commander indicated that it was quite obvious that
the applicant would not be a productive security policeman due to  the
recent events and that the scope of the problems that he was trying to
resolve would thereby also  prohibit  a  cross-training  into  another
career field.  Therefore, the commander felt that it would be  in  the
best interest of the Air Force and the applicant that he separate from
the service.

On 25 Jul 88, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR
39-10 (Hardship Reasons) in the grade of airman first  class  with  an
honorable characterization of service and an RE code of 4A  (Separated
for Hardship or Dependence Reasons).  He was credited with 1  year,  6
months, and 20 days of active service.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP reviewed this application  and  recommends  denial.   They
state that even though the applicant has made  great  changes  in  his
life, he did not submit any new evidence or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and based on  the
documentation in the file,  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was within the  sound  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.

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

AFPC/DPPAE also reviewed this application and indicated  that  the  RE
code of 4A is correct.

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

_______________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to  applicant  on
15 Feb 02 for review and response 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 but the Board chose to consider  it
in the interests of justice.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  At the time a member is
separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE Code predicated
upon the quality of their  service  and  the  circumstances  of  their
separation.  The assigned  code  reflects  the  Air  Force’s  position
regarding whether or not, or under what circumstances, the  individual
should be allowed to reenlist.  The evidence of  record  supports  the
Air Force’s stated reasons for applicant’s separation.  We  noted  the
great changes in the applicant’s life, however, we are  not  persuaded
that the assigned RE code is in error or unjust or that  a  correction
of the RE code is warranted.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.  We note that the RE code  of  “4A”
is a waiverable code; therefore, we suggest that the applicant contact
his local recruiter concerning his reaffiliation to the military.

________________________________________________________________

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 this application  AFBCMR
Docket Number 01-03151 in Executive Session  on  26 March 2002,  under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
      Mr. Billy Baxter, Member
      Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 7 Dec 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Jan 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Feb 02, w/atchs.




                                  PHILIP SHEUERMAN

                                  Panel Chair