RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02099
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from  “2X”,  first-
term, second-term, or career airman considered but not  selected  for
reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP),  to  one
in the “1” series that will allow her to reenlist in the Air Force.

In a rebuttal to the Air Force  evaluation,  applicant  now  requests
that she be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force,  promoted  to
the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6)  and  allowed  to  cross
train into the Paralegal career field she was approved for  prior  to
her discharge.

She be paid all back  pay  and  allowances  from  the  time  she  was
involuntarily separated.

If reinstated to active duty, she requests that she be given  a  join
spouse assignment.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her commander treated her unjustly by denying her reenlistment in the
Air Force.

She was placed  under  investigation  for  unauthorized  use  of  her
government credit card.  The charges were eventually dropped but  her
commander  informed  her  that  he  was  not  recommending  her   for
reenlistment.

At the time of her discharge, she was not aware that  the  leadership
in her squadron had  knowledge  that  her  government  card  and  her
personal credit card, both issued by Bank of America,  had  the  same
account number.  This information was sent by e-mail to personnel  in
her unit who then failed to inform her or her  area  defense  counsel
(ADC).  It was weeks after her discharge that she became aware of the
e-mail.

She had over nine years of exemplary service and received many  types
of  recognition  during  her  career.   The  applicant  believes  her
squadron  leadership  and   the   Air   Force   Office   of   Special
Investigations (AFOSI) made a mistake in regards to the investigation
against her and in order to save face decided to get rid of her.  She
was not notified in writing of her commander’s intent  not  to  elect
her for reenlistment and did not receive an opportunity to appeal his
decision.  According to AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.1.2,  involuntary
discharge is not a substitute for disciplinary action.  Since she was
exonerated of all charges, there was no basis for disciplinary action
or involuntary discharge.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air  Force  on  31  Aug  90.   She  was
discharged on 10 Dec 99 after she was denied reenlistment.   She  was
given an RE code of “2X.”  A complete resume of her overall  enlisted
performance ratings follows:

      Closeout Date                     Overall Rating

        29 Apr 92                            4
        11 Nov 92                            5
        07 Sep 93                            5
        07 Sep 94                            4
        07 Sep 95                            5
        07 Sep 96                            5
        07 Sep 97                       missing from file
       *08 Jul 98                            5
        08 Jul 99                            5

*  The copy of this EPR sent in by the applicant  is  different  from
the one filed in the applicant’s official records.  The copy sent  in
by the applicant does not contain any markdowns in Section III, while
the copy filed in the official records is marked down in Section III,
Item 5.  On 6 Mar 03, the AFBCMR forwarded the  applicant  copies  of
the EPRs for her review and comments (Exhibit K).

In her response regarding the  discrepancy,  the  applicant  contends
that the copy of the EPR she sent in was included in a package  given
to her by the US Air Force Academy Military  Personnel  Flight  (MPF)
upon her discharge.  She states that she did assist in preparing  her
cross training package, including making copies  of  her  EPRs.   She
states that the EPR with  the  discrepancy  was  filed  in  her  unit
personal information file (PIF).  The applicant states that she never
verified that the copies she had  were  the  same  as  those  in  her
official personnel file.  She states  that  the  discrepancy  further
perpetuates her belief that her squadron leadership lacked integrity.
 The applicant’s complete statement is at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends that the applicant’s  RE  code  be  changed  to
“3K,” and that she exhaust all reenlistment  waiver  options  through
recruiting  service  before  applying   to   AFPC.    There   is   no
documentation to support the  applicant  being  denied  reenlistment.
Her past performance reports and  other  documentation  in  her  file
indicate that she clearly exceeded Air Force  standards.   An  e-mail
message from the Bank of America to her unit clearly states that  the
applicant had two accounts with the same number.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air  Force  evaluation  by  indicating
that she agrees with the determination that she was treated unjustly.
 She states that after consulting counsel, she would  like  to  amend
her application.  She believes that she should be reinstated  to  the
Air Force and promoted to the TSgt.  She indicates that  if  she  had
been allowed to continue her career, she would have been eligible  to
test for promotion to TSgt in the year 2000.  She requests  that  she
be paid all back pay and allowances, with interest, from the date she
was involuntarily discharged.  She also requests that she be  allowed
to continue with the cross training that had been approved  prior  to
her discharge.  Finally, she requests a join spouse assignment  since
she is married to a military member.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request,  additional  Air  Force  evaluations
were prepared to address the issues and additional  requests  brought
out in the applicant’s response at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPPWB  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s   request   for
automatic promotion to TSgt.  Based on the applicant’s date  of  rank
(DOR) of 1 Nov 98 to staff sergeant (SSgt), she would have first been
eligible for  promotion  consideration  to  TSgt  during  cycle  01E6
(promotions effective Aug 01-Jul 02).  Since she  was  no  longer  on
active duty, she was not eligible to be considered  for  this  cycle.
Should the Board grant her request to reenlist, she would be eligible
for supplemental consideration to TSgt beginning with cycle 01E6.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends that the applicant’s  RE  code  be  changed  to
“3K,” reserved for use by  HQ  AFPC  or  the  AFBCMR  when  no  other
reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate.   They  also
recommend, if the applicant is allowed to return to active duty, that
she be allowed to return in the Paralegal career field, since she was
projected for retraining prior to her discharge.

A review of  the  applicant’s  records  indicates  that  she  was  an
excellent  performer.   She  was  medically  disqualified  from   the
Security Forces AFSC.  She was highly recommended for retraining into
the  Paralegal  career  field  by  her  commander,  first   sergeant,
supervisors,  and  base  staff   judge   advocate.    There   is   no
documentation to support her being denied reenlistment.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

AFPC/DPPRS evaluated the applicant’s discharge processing.   They  do
not find any documentation in her record to support the action taken.
 Based on this  and  the  evaluations  provided  by  AFPC/DPPPWB  and
AFPC/DPPAE,  they   recommend   that   the   applicant   be   granted
administrative relief.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit H.

AFPC/DPAAD2 addressed the  applicant’s  request  for  a  join  spouse
assignment.  They do not make a recommendation but indicate  that  if
the applicant is granted relief, they will do their utmost to  assign
her with her husband.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT”S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the additional Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the
applicant on 17 Jan 03 for review and response within  30  days.   To
date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 regarding the applicant’s request
for reinstatement to active duty  in  the  Air  Force,  promotion  to
technical sergeant, and payment of all back pay and  allowances  from
the date of her separation.   Subsequently,  there  is  no  basis  to
consider her request for a join spouse assignment  and  that  she  be
allowed to cross train into the paralegal career field.  Although the
applicant did not have  documented  misconduct  or  duty  performance
deficiencies entered into her record, the OSI Report of Investigation
prepared on her contains very strong  evidence  of  infractions  that
could have supported denial of reenlistment.  The Board presumes that
the  commander  failed  to  follow  reenlistment  procedures  through
ignorance or oversight, and not malice.  In any event, the  Board  is
unconvinced  that  had  the  proper  procedures  been  followed,  the
applicant  would  have  successfully   challenged   the   denial   of
reenlistment.  Since the Board is unwilling to speculate  as  to  the
result of a reenlistment appeal,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend  granting  this  portion  of  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  Notwithstanding our decision above, we  believe  that  sufficient
evidence of an error or injustice has  been  presented  warranting  a
measure of relief.  In that regard,  we  believe  that  the  lack  of
proper documentation and evidence of administrative  or  disciplinary
actions  taken  against  the  applicant  supports  a  change  in  the
applicant’s Reenlistment Eligibility code.  The  Board  believes  the
appropriate code change should be to “3K,” rather than a code in  the
“1” series.  This will allow the applicant to apply for  reenlistment
in the Air Force should she so desire.  Therefore, we recommend  that
the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the  time  of  her
discharge on 10 December 1999, her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code
was RE-3K.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number  BC-2002-
02099 in Executive Session on 1 April 2003, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

All members voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records;
        OSI Report of Investigation, w/d.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Oct 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Oct 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Dec 02.
     Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 23 Dec 02.
     Exhibit H.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jan 03.
     Exhibit I.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAAD2, dated 13 Jan 03.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Mar 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Mar 03.





                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair


AFBCMR BC-2002-02099


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 XXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show
that at the time of her discharge on               10 December
1999, her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code was RE-3K.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency