RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-02803
            INDEX CODE 100.06
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “4E” (Grade is airman  first
class (A1C) or below and airman completed 31  or  more  months,  if  a
first-term airman) be changed to one that will allow enlistment in the
Air National Guard (ANG).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Despite taking action to remedy his  debts,  his  first  sergeant  and
commander were unsatisfied with his conduct and presented him with  an
Article 15, reducing him in rank.  He performed  his  extra  duty  and
then was made ineligible to reenlist. He did everything  his  squadron
had asked of him, yet it was not good enough. He is sorry for what  he
did and never intended it to get out of hand.  After his discharge  he
resolved his debt, recognized his  immaturity  and  learned  from  his
mistake. He believes he has paid his debt.  He  misses  being  a  crew
chief and would like to join the ANG in order to serve his  state  and
country in any way possible.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period  of  four
years on 18 Aug 94. He extended his enlistment on 22 Nov 95  for  five
months to qualify  for  an  overseas  assignment.  He  was  ultimately
promoted to senior airman (SRA)  on  18  Dec  96.  The  applicant  was
assigned to the 17th Special Operations Squadron at Kadena AFB, Japan.
During the period in question, he was an assistant crew chief with the
353rd Maintenance Squadron, also at Kadena.

His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR) reflect the following:

            CLOSING DATE          RATING

            15 Apr 96          3
            15 Apr 97          4
            15 Apr 98          3

The indorser of the 15 Apr 96 EPR commented  that  the  applicant  had
“experienced some financial difficulties,” which  were  remedied  with
counseling.  The rater of the 15 Apr 98 EPR  indicated  the  applicant
“displayed poor judgment in financial management” but had changed  his
attitude and made favorable progress.

On 23 Sep 98, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following:

            (1)  On 4 Aug 98, with the intent to deceive, he  made  an
official statement to a master sergeant which was known to him  to  be
“totally false,” to wit: “I have been unable to pay my bills because I
went TDY and used the money to get ready for it and my  dad  has  been
sick and I have rolled up a 1,300 dollar phone bill  calling  back  to
check on him, and the phone bill was taken straight out of my check.”

            (2)  Being indebted $222.63 to Rapid  Link  for  telephone
calls, which became due and payable on 1 Oct 97 and which he failed to
pay on 2 Sep 98.

            (3)  Being indebted $877.30  to  American  Express,  which
became due and payable on 25 May 98 and which he failed  to  pay  that
date.

On 28 Sep 98, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived  his
right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and
submitted a written presentation. On 5 Oct 98, his commander found him
guilty and imposed punishment of reduction to  A1C  with  30  days  of
extra duty. Applicant did not appeal the punishment and the Article 15
was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

The applicant was honorably  discharged  for  completion  of  required
active service on 17 Jan 99 in the grade of A1C. He had four years and
five months of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAE asserts the RE code is correct and the applicant has not
satisfactorily  indicated  the  code  was  inappropriate  or  not   in
compliance with Air Force policy.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 17 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, a majority  of  the
Board is not persuaded that his “4E” RE code should  be  changed.  The
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,  the  Board  majority
does not find these assertions, in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.  The
applicant’s 1996 EPR reveals he had difficulty managing his  finances.
His 1998 EPR and the Article 15 demonstrate he continued  to  exercise
poor judgment and irresponsibility regarding his debts. We, the  Board
majority, therefore adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having
suffered either an error or an injustice. In view  of  the  above  and
absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the majority of the  Board
concludes this appeal should be denied.

4.    We would like to point out to the applicant that while  the  “4”
RE code series indicate “Conditions Barring  Immediate  Reenlistment,”
they are “waiverable.” In other words, an RE code from the “4”  series
does allow him to apply for enlistment and, should he  have  desirable
skills and be otherwise acceptable, the Reserves/Guard  may  elect  to
waive  his  ineligibility  and  allow  him  to  enlist.  However,  the
applicant should understand that while his “4E” RE code is waiverable,
it in no way obligates the Services to accept him for enlistment.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 3 April 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Jr., Panel Chair
            Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member
            Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Mr. Carey voted to grant, but he does not wish to  submit  a  Minority
Report. The following documentary evidence relating to  AFBCMR  Docket
Number BC-2002-02803 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Jan 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.




                                   JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN, JR.
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2002-02803





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency