RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02509
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of  his  separation  apparently  there  was  an  incorrect
reenlistment code entered in his DD Form 214.  This was discovered  by
his Air Force Reserve recruiter.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of his DD Form 214,
a copy of  his  Selective  Reenlistment  Consideration  document,  two
certificates, and several  supportive  statements  prepared  in  March
1982.  The applicant's complete submission, with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 April 1980.   The
following is a resume of his Airman Performance Report (APR ratings.

      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

        8 Apr 1981 (A1C)              7
        5 Jan 1982              5
*      12 Mar 1982              6
       31 Jul 1982              7

NOTE:  * - Referral report.  After reviewing the applicant’s
           comments, the first indorser upgraded the overall
           evaluation assigned by the rater from a 4 to a 6.
           (It appears the supportive statements provided by the
           applicant at Exhibit A were presented with his
           rebuttal comments to the rater’s assessment.)

By letter dated 13 January 1982, the commander denied the award of the
Good Conduct Medal to the applicant.

The applicant was promoted  to  the  grade  of  senior  airman  (E-4),
effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 1982.

On 31 May 1983, the applicant’s supervisor initiated an AF  Form  418,
Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer  Status  Consideration,
recommending  the   applicant   for   reenlistment.    His   commander
nonselected him for reenlistment on 8  June  1983,  stating  that  the
applicant’s past duty performance and behavior  did  not  qualify  him
under the quality control program  for  reenlistment.   The  applicant
elected not to appeal this decision.

On  1  September  1983,  the  applicant  was  involuntarily  honorably
discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, FY 83
Early Separation Program – Strength  Reduction.   He  was  assigned  a
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2X “First term airman considered
but not selected under SRP.”  He had served 3 years, 4 months  and  23
days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE states that based on the review of his case  file,  his  RE
code 2X is correct.  The applicant has not satisfactorily  established
that the commander’s action to deny reenlistment was inappropriate  or
not in compliance with Air Force policy.   Therefore,  they  recommend
denial of applicant’s request.  A complete copy of the  evaluation  is
attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  states  that  in
reference to AFPC/DPPAE stating that a review of his records  revealed
that on 8 June 1983, Colonel H--- signed an  AF  Form  418,  Selective
Reenlistment Consideration, which denied him the right to reenlist due
to past duty performance, and behavior,  he  truly  finds  this  quite
interesting as he holds in his possession another form not  designated
with any particular no, in which Lt Colonel H--- clearly initials  and
signs his recommendation for reenlistment on 31 March 1983.  He  notes
that this document he holds is not a forgery, or has been  altered  in
any way.  Furthermore, he holds the original  document.   It  is  this
particular reason why he finds AFPC/DPPAE’s findings inconsistent, and
challenge them or anyone else involved in this matter to find any type
of reprimand or negative entry in his military records from the period
of 31 March 1983 to 8 June 1983, which would influence his commander’s
original decision of recommendation for reenlistment.

For the record, and please believe  him  that  this  brings  extremely
painful memories, the only reason he separated originally,  and  asked
for early separation under a special early separation program at  that
time, was because of a particular NCOIC Staff Sergeant D--- G---,  who
for a period of three years made his military service period a  living
hell by constantly attacking him and his family, directly  because  of
his ethnic background.

He’s sure the underlying question you must be  asking  is  why  is  he
almost twenty years  after  separation  with  an  honorable  discharge
already in his possession wanting to return and serve actively in  the
Air Force Reserve.  The answer is quite simple and  sincere;  when  he
saw the events on 11 September 2001, he decided then he had to in some
way become part of the fight and  immediately  called  the  Air  Force
Reserve Recruiter.  He honestly believes that regardless how small  of
a contribution he could make to fight terrorism  against  the  country
which gave him everything he has, including  freedom,  he  would.   He
strongly still feels that regardless of personal risk, if he is  given
the chance, he will make his country and its Air Force proud each  and
every minute that he once again serve.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error
or that he has  been  the  victim  of  an  injustice.   The  applicant
provides a computer-generated Selective  Reeenlistment  Program  (SRP)
consideration, in which his  supervisor  (not  the  commander  as  the
applicant states), recommended him for reenlistment on 31 March  1983.
The official SRP document contained in the applicant’s record, the  AF
Form  418,  shows  that  his  supervisor  again  recommended  him  for
reenlistment.   However,  his  commander,  who  was  vested  with  the
discretionary authority to determine whether the applicant  should  be
allowed to reenlist, nonselected the applicant for reenlistment.   The
applicant was advised of this decision  and  elected  not  to  appeal.
There is nothing in the record which would lead us  to  conclude  that
the commander erred in this matter.  While it  is  true  there  is  no
record of any disciplinary action taken  against  the  applicant,  the
ratings  and  comments  on  his  performance   reports   support   the
commander’s decision.  The applicant asserts that his problems stemmed
from the bias of and mistreatment by  the  rater  on  his  performance
reports.  In this regard, we are constrained to note that each of  his
evaluators was responsible for independently assessing his performance
and they could disagree with the rater’s assessments if they  believed
such action was appropriate.  In fact, this is exactly  what  occurred
in the case of the applicant’s report  closing  12  March  1982.   The
supportive  statements  provided  by  the  applicant   were   prepared
contemporaneously with this report and it appears that the  sentiments
of the authors were known  to  the  applicant’s  rating  chain,  which
included his commander.  In view of the above and in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence by the applicant showing that his commander abused
his  discretionary  authority,  that  his  substantial   rights   were
violated, or that he would now be able to successfully function in the
highly structured military environment, we find no basis on  which  to
favorably consider this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 30 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Edward C. Koenig III, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                 Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Oct 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Nov 02.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Letter, dated 16 Nov 02.




                             EDWARD C. KOENIG III
                             Panel Chair