RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02576
            INDEX CODE:  100.06

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She served eight and half years on active duty and now has no  veteran
benefits.  She found out that the code was  in  the  system  when  she
tried to enlist in the Air Force Reserve.  She cannot  reenlist  until
the code is changed.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 Aug 90.

On 8 Oct 98, the  applicant’s  commander  notified  her  that  he  was
considering whether she should be punished under Article  15,  Uniform
Code of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ),  based  on  allegations  that  the
applicant did, on or  about  15  Jul  98,  without  authority,  absent
herself from her place of duty at which she was required  to  be,  and
did remain so absent until on or about 17 Jul 98; she did, on  diverse
occasions, between on or about 25 Apr 98 and on or about  12  May  98,
fail to obey a lawful general regulation (AFI  65-104)  by  using  her
United States Government American Express Travel Charge Card for other
than “official use” by making 12 miscellaneous cash advances in excess
of $1,089.00 while not in official travel status; she did, on or about
15 Jul 98, with intent to deceive, sign an official document (AF  Form
988) which was false in that she assigned a false leave number to  the
document; and, she did on or about 16 Jul 98,  wrongfully  solicit  an
airman to destroy an AF Form 988.  The applicant was  advised  of  her
rights in the matter.  After consulting legal counsel,  the  applicant
waived her right  to  demand  trial  by  court-martial,  accepted  the
nonjudicial  proceedings  under  Article  15,  and  submitted  written
comments for review.  On 21 Oct  98,  after  considering  the  matters
presented by the applicant, the commander found that she had committed
one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment.   She  was
reduced from the grade of senior airman to  airman  first  class,  and
reduced from the grade of airman first class to  airman  basic,  which
was suspended until 20 Apr 99.   The  applicant  did  not  appeal  the
punishment.

Applicant was honorably discharged on 30 Nov 98 under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-3208 (Hardship) and assigned  an  RE  code  of  4H  (Serving
suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of  Military
Justice (UCMJ)).  She was credited with  8  years,  and  3  months  of
active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS indicated that AFPC/DPPAES would address the RE Code issue.
 However, based upon the documentation in the file, they  believe  the
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge
was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  In  AFPC/DPPRS’
view, the applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAES evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial of the applicant’s request to change her
RE code, indicating that a review of her records revealed that she did
receive punishment under Article 15, which was  contradictory  to  her
statement.  Members serving punishment under Article 15 receive an  RE
code of 4H.  The fact that the applicant  requested  and  was  granted
separation for hardship reasons does not change the RE code which  was
in effect at the time of her separation.  In  AFPC/DPPAE’s  view,  the
applicant presented no  evidence  that  the  RE  code  was  improperly
assessed to her records.  According to  AFPC/DPPAE,  the  RE  code  is
correct.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  22
Nov 02 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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.  We note that  the  Secretary  of
the  Air  Force  has  statutory  authority  to  promulgate  rules  and
regulations governing the administration of the  Air  Force.   In  the
exercise of that authority, the Secretary has determined that  members
separated from the Air Force would be furnished an RE code  predicated
upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and  circumstances  of   their
separation.  The evidence of record reflects that  the  applicant  was
honorably discharged for hardship reasons.  However, because  she  was
separated while serving a suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15,
UCMJ, she was assigned an RE code of 4H.  Therefore,  the  applicant’s
RE code apparently was appropriately assigned and accurately reflected
the circumstances of her separation,  and,  we  find  no  evidence  to
indicate the assigned RE code was in error.  In view of the foregoing,
and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  conclude  that  no
basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s  request
that her RE code of 4H be changed.  We believe it  should  be  pointed
out to the applicant that her RE code of 4H is one that, based on  the
needs of the  respective  military  service,  can  be  waived  by  the
enlistment authorities.

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02576 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 03, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
      Mr. George Franklin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 22.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair