RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01750
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX               COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXX                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  be  changed  from  4A  (hardship  or
dependency discharge) to 1J (eligible to reenlist but elected  to  separate)
to enable him to re-enter the USAF.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He and his military spouse consulted AFPC about joint spouse assignments  to
Antioch, IL, where his spouse had a  report-not-later-than-date  (RNLTD)  of
30 Sep 01 as a recruiter.  They received a negative response from AFPC.   He
attempted to apply for a Palace Chase assignment with the ---  Air  National
Guard and again received disapproval.   He  was  concerned  about  potential
financial and custody problems arising from him  being  separated  from  his
wife and child.  He also needed to be in the Chicago area  to  care  for  an
ill father.  He had also been accepted to attend Chicago State University.

On 1 August 2001, he  requested  a  miscellaneous  discharge  instead  of  a
hardship or dependency discharge.  The MPF misled him during his  separation
process.  The MPF  advised  him  that  a  miscellaneous  discharge  was  the
easiest and fastest way to  separate.   He  would  have  taken  measures  to
ensure his availability to continue to serve had he known he  would  not  be
able to reenter active duty.

In support of his application, he provides  a  personal  statement;  his  DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty; and  letters
of recommendation supporting a miscellaneous discharge from members  in  his
chain-of-command along with a letter of  support  from  his  chaplain.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 December 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the
age of 20 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four  years.   Member
was progressively promoted  to  the  rank  of  Senior  Airman  effective  22
January 2001.

On  31  July  2001,  the  applicant  requested  an  early   separation   for
miscellaneous reasons under the provisions of  AFR  39-10  (sic),  paragraph
3.15.  The separation authority approved his request on 13 August 2001.   On
15  September  2001,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 with an RE code of 4A and  a  separation  code  of
KND (miscellaneous/general reasons).  He had served 3 years,  7  months  and
24 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE conducted a review of the applicant’s  case  file  and  concluded
his RE code of 4A,  “Separated  for  hardship  or  dependency  reasons”  was
properly assessed  to  the  applicant’s  record  as  he  was  discharged  in
accordance to  Air  Force  Directives.   The  AFPC/DPPAE  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   The  applicant  did  not  submit  any  new
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  of  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge process.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting  a  change
in his discharge.  The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant points out that  the  advisory  from  AFPC/DPPRS  states  that
under the provisions of AFI 36-2208, Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen,
he was separated  for  miscellaneous/general  reasons.   The  advisory  from
AFPC/DPPAE states that a 4A reenlistment code is defined as  “Separated  for
hardship or dependency reasons.”

When he was seeking separation,  he  was  advised  by  the  MPF  separations
section representative not to attempt to  be  discharged  under  a  hardship
separation.  The MPF recommended  a  miscellaneous  separation  because  the
process would be quicker.  He took the MPF representative’s advice  and  his
request was granted.  He did not realize at the time of separation that  the
RE-4A was a hardship separation code.

The applicant indicates separation was his only  solution  to  circumstances
in his life at that time.  He has since reevaluated  his  circumstances  and
is now available to return to active duty.

The applicant’s review, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review of  the  available
records, we found no evidence that the RE Code assigned at the time  of  the
applicant’s separation was contrary to the governing regulation  or  unjust.
The applicant asserts he was miscounseled  at  the  time  he  submitted  his
application for separation.  However, other than his own assertions, he  has
provided no evidence to substantiate this claim.  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  stated   reasons   for
applicant’s separation and the corresponding RE code assigned  in  his  case
and the applicant has provided no evidence showing the problems he cited  as
reasons for his desire to separate from the Regular Air Force in  2001  have
been resolved.  We note that, according to the  governing  instruction,  the
applicant’s  RE  code  is  a  waiverable  one;  however,  we   believe   the
determination as to whether it should  be  waived  should  be  made  by  the
branch of service to which he applies.   Based  on  the  above  and  in  the
absence of evidence showing that the applicant’s request for separation  was
coerced in any way, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 in  Executive
Session on 3 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket No. 02-01750:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 02, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 20 Aug 02.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Aug 02.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 14 Sep 02, with
                Attachments.






                                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                                   Panel Chair