RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02535
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXX                         HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE)  code  be  changed  from  2C  (involuntary
separation with honorable discharge) to enable him to enter  the  Air  Force
Reserve.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he attempted to enlist in the Air Force  Reserve,  he  discovered  that
the RE code on his discharge documents prevented him from doing so.  He  was
not aware his separation from the Air Force was based on his performance  or
that his RE code prevented his reentry into military service.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal  statement,
eight letters of recommendation, and the last  two  performance  evaluations
from his civilian  employer.   The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 May 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the  age
of 22 in the grade of airman first class (E-3) for a period of  four  years.
The applicant was trained in Air Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  605X5,  Air
Transportation career field.  The applicant’s Primary  Air  Force  Specialty
Codes  (PAFSC)  was  upgraded  to  the  5-skill  level,   60555,   Passenger
Reservation Specialist, effective 3 April 1992.  He  received  two  Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 8 January 1993 and 30 September 1993,  in
which the promotion recommendations were 3 and 2, respectively.

On 3 September 1993, the applicant’s supervisor submitted an  AF  Form  418,
Selective   Reenlistment/Noncommissioned   Officer   Status   Consideration,
nonrecommending  the  applicant  for   reenlistment   due   to   substandard
performance.   On  7  September  1993,  the  applicant’s  Squadron   Section
Commander approved  the  applicant’s  nonselection  for  reenlistment.   The
applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  action  on  8  September  1993  and
elected not to appeal the decision.

The  applicant  was  notified  by  his  Squadron  Section  Commander  on  20
September 1993, of the intent to downgrade his PAFSC to the  3-skill  level,
60535, due to substandard performance.  An AF Form 2096,  Classification/On-
the-Job Training Action, was completed on  20  September  1993,  downgrading
the applicant’s PAFSC 60555 to PAFSC 60535 due  to  substandard  performance
effective 20 September 1993.

On 10 March 1994, the applicant’s supervisor recommended that the  applicant
be separated due to unacceptable performance.   The  applicant  acknowledged
receipt of the recommendation on  12  April  1994.   On  26  May  1994,  the
applicant’s Squadron Section Commander  recommended  the  applicant  not  be
considered for cross training.  On 22 June 1994,  the  applicant’s  Squadron
Section Commander notified the applicant of  his  intent  to  recommend  the
applicant for discharge  based  on  unsatisfactory  duty  performance.   The
applicant acknowledged receipt on the  same  day.   On  27  June  1994,  the
Squadron  Section  Commander  signed  a  recommendation  to  the   discharge
authority  for  the  applicant’s  discharge  based  on  unsatisfactory  duty
performance.  The applicant indicated he had consulted  counsel  and  waived
his right to submit statements.  On 28 June  1994,  the  recommendation  was
found to be legally sufficient by the  Acting  Staff  Judge  Advocate.   The
discharge authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AFPD  39-
10, paragraph 5-26a(1)  on  29  June  1994.   The  applicant  was  honorably
discharged effective 8 July 1994 with a separation code JHJ  (unsatisfactory
performance) and a reentry code  of  2C  (involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable discharge).  He had served 3  years,  2  months  and  19  days  on
active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the applicant’s case file  and  concludes  that  the  RE
code of 2C is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS  reviewed  the  applicant’s  case  file  and  concurs  that   the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  does  not  recall  his  Commander’s  notification  of  the
recommended discharge action nor does he recall acknowledging  receipt  of
notification.  He also does not recall consulting legal counsel concerning
his case.  He states that his supervisor only notified him of an offer for
an honorable discharge.  He wishes a second chance to do  a  good  job  by
serving his country in the Air Force Reserve.  The applicant’s  review  is
at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the  information  in  the  discharge  case  was
erroneous, his substantial rights were violated,  or  that  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  The RE code which was issued at  the
time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of
his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or  unjust.   In
view of the foregoing, we conclude that  no  basis  exists  upon  which  to
recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 5 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr., Member
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket No. 02-02535:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 02, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Oct 02.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Sep 02.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 2 Dec 02.






                                                   ROSCOE HINTON JR.
                                                   Panel Chair