RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01749
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His evaluations all show that he was equal to or above average in  the
4½ years that he was in the service.  Therefore,  he  feels  that  the
separation and reenlistment codes he was given may have been in error.

In support of his application, he provided a personal statement.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  on  30  July  1982.
Prior to the events under review, he was  promoted  to  the  grade  of
senior airman (E-4) on 30 July 1985 and was subsequently  appointed  a
sergeant (E-4).  He received six Airman Performance Reports  in  which
the overall evaluations were 8, 9, 9, 9, 7, and 7 (the highest  rating
being 9).

On 4 October 1986, the applicant’s  supervisor  recommended  that  his
noncommissioned officer  (NCO)  status  be  vacated.   The  supervisor
stated his reasons for such action were  the  applicant’s  failure  to
accept and execute his duties and responsibilities as an  NCO,  and  a
lack of maturity and intitiative expected of an  NCO.   The  commander
approved this recommendation on 6 October 1986 and, as a  result,  the
applicant’s rank reverted to the grade of senior airman (E-4).   On  6
October 1986, the commander notified the applicant  that  he  was  not
being recommended for promotion to the next  higher  grade.   Specific
reasons for this action are his recent vacation of NCO status  due  to
his  lack  of  acceptance  of  NCO  responsibilities  and  supervisory
capabilities, as well as indications of substandard behavior and  duty
performance.  Applicant acknowledged and understood that he was  being
denied reenlistment.

The applicant, while  serving  in  the  grade  of  senior  airman  was
honorably discharged on 26 February 1987 under the provisions  of  AFR
39-10 (expiration term of service)  with  a  separation  code  of  K13
(completed extended enlistment).  He had served 4 years, 6 months  and
27 days of total active service.  An  RE-2Y  (second  term  or  career
airman who has been denied an NCO  appointment  or  who  has  had  NCO
status vacated) was assigned.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are  contained  in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that there are no errors or  irregularities  causing
an injustice to the applicant.   The  separation  code  complies  with
directives in effect at the time of his  discharge.   Therefore,  they
recommend denial of applicant’s  request.   A  complete  copy  of  the
evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE  concurred  with  the  assessment   of   AFPC/DPPRS.    The
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code 2Y “A second-term or career  airman
who has been denied appointment to NCO status, or has had  NCO  status
vacated” is correct.  A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 30 August 2002, a complete copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was
forwarded to the applicant 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 filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of injustice warranting  a  change  to  the  applicant’s
reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code.   The  record  shows  that  the
applicant  completed  his  extended  enlistment  and   was   honorably
discharged.  His duty  performance,  for  the  most  part,  was  good.
However, the behaviors leading to the assignment of an RE  code  which
disquaified him for reenlistment commenced when  he  was  expected  to
perform at the level required of an NCO.  It appears to  us  that  his
inability to perform as expected was due, in  a  large  part,  to  his
immaturity, a condition which it is to be hoped time has cured.  After
considering all the  evidence  of  record  and  the  contents  of  the
applicant’s personal statement, and in view  of  the  time  which  has
elapsed since his separation, we believe the applicant should again be
given the opportunity to serve and that the continued imposition of  a
disqualifying  RE  code  constitutes  an  injustice.   Therefore,   we
recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.  The
RE code of “4D” -- a waiverable code -- will allow  the  applicant  to
apply for enlistment in any branch of the Armed  Forces.   This  code,
defined is airman separated with an honorable  discharge,  but  formal
SRP was  not  completed  prior  to  separation.   While  not  entirely
accurate, this is the only waiverable code in effect at  the  time  of
separation which could applied to the applicant’s  case.   We  do  not
advocate changing the code to a 1J (eligible to reenlist  without  any
known disqualifying factor)  because  whether  or  not  the  applicant
should be accepted for enlistment is, in  our  view,  a  determination
best left to the service to which application is made.  We have  noted
the applicant’s request for a change to his separation code.  However,
since that code accurately reflects  the  reason  for  his  separation
(completion of extended enlistment) and is not, itself, a bar to entry
into a branch of the Armed Forces, a change to this code  would  serve
no useful purpose.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the  time  of  his
discharge  on  26  February  1987,  he  was  issued   a   Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) code of “4D.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application  on  22
October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                 Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered with  AFBCMR  Docket
No. 02-01749:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Jun 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 22 Aug 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Aug 02.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 01-02916
INDEX CODE:  112.00




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to, be corrected to show that at the time of his
discharge on 26 February 1987, he was issued a Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) code of “4D.”





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency