RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02857
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment code (RE) be changed to allow her  to  join  the  Air
Force Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not notified of the RE code change.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  7  July  1986,  as  an
airman for a period of four (4) years.

On 14 May 1987, the applicant was notified of her  commander’s  intent
to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for the  following:   on  or
about 28 December 1988, without authority, she failed  to  go  at  the
time prescribed to her appointed place of duty.

On 21 May 1987, after consulting with counsel,  applicant  waived  her
right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and
did not submit a written presentation.

On 26 May 1987, she was found guilty by her commander who imposed  the
following punishment:   forfeiture  of  $172.00  of  pay,  ordered  to
undergo correctional custody for 30 consecutive days.   The  execution
of the  portion of the punishment which provided  for  30  consecutive
days of correctional  custody was  suspended until 25 November 1987 at
which time, unless the suspension was  sooner  vacated,  it  could  be
remitted without further action.

On 4 January 1989, applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for the following:  on or about
8 May 1987, the applicant without authority, failed to go at the  time
prescribed to her appointed place of duty.

On 9 January 1989, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived her
right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and
did not submit a written presentation.

On 9 January 1989, she was found guilty by her commander  who  imposed
the following punishment:  reduction to the grade of airman, suspended
until 8 July 1989 at which time it would be remitted  without  further
action unless sooner vacated, and 14 days’ extra duty.

The applicant’s commander notified her on 6 July 1989, that he was not
recommending her for promotion because  she  received  an  Article  15
dated 9 January 1989 for failure to go to her appointed place of  duty
and a  Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF)  was  established  on  20
December 1988.  The duration of the nonrecommendation was from 10 July
1989 to 9 December 1989.

The applicant requested and was approved for  a  voluntary  separation
for pregnancy.  The applicant was honorably discharged  on  15  August
1989, in the grade of airman first class.  She served three years, one
month and nine days of active service.  She was given an RE code of 3B
which denotes first-term, second-term or career airman, with 13 months
or less before ETS who was ineligible to reenlist (tables 6-2, 6-3, or
6-4), whose ineligibility factor or condition has been resolved and is
now due for SRP consideration  or  reconsideration.   Airmen  are  not
separated with this code.

On 19 September 1989, a DD Form 215 was issued correcting the RE  code
to 2X which indicates a  first-term,  second-term,  or  career  airman
considered but not selected reenlistment under the SRP.

Applicant's EPR profile reflects the following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                    30 May 88                            8
                    *30  May  89                              2   (NEW
SYSTEM)


*Referral Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
her discharge.   Based  upon  the  documentation  in  the  applicant’s
records, they believe her discharge was consistent with the procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations.  Also,  the
discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge  authority.
The applicant did not provide  any  facts  to  warrant  upgrading  her
discharge.  Based  on  the  information  and  evidence  provided  they
recommend the request be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE states the  applicant  was  voluntary  discharged  under
honorable conditions with RE code  2X  “First  term,  second-term,  or
career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment  under  the
SRP.”  Furthermore, the applicant has not provided evidence to support
that the commander’s action to deny reenlistment was inappropriate  or
not in compliance with Air Force policy.  Therefore, the  2X  RE  code
the applicant received is correct.  DPPAE recommends  the  applicant’s
request be denied (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  states  she  was
not aware of the RE code change until she  enlisted  in  the  Maryland
Army National Guard in 1997.  She further  states  that  she  was  not
denied reenlistment; she was not up for  reenlistment  status  rather,
she was contemplating cross training into another career field at  the
time of her three year mark.  She was promoted to airman first  class.
She spoke with the NCO of the medical group and informed him that  she
could  not  cross  train  and  would  be  separating  voluntarily  for
pregnancy.  Her son was born with a medical  condition  that  required
extensive medical care for the first three years  of  his  life.   She
decided to put her desire to continue her service under the Reserve on
hold.  To her knowledge, she spoke with  her  commander  and  was  not
denied reenlistment or promotion.   In  support  of  her  request  she
submitted a character letter from retired Major  General  P.  (Exhibit
F).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the existence  of  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  apparently
requested and was approved for a voluntary separation for  pregnancy.
However, after separating, she received a DD Form 215 indicating that
her reenlistment eligibility  (RE)  code  had  been  changed  to  one
indicating  that  she  had  been  considered  and  not  selected  for
reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program.  We note  that
the applicant received a referral  performance  report  for  marginal
duty performance and was nonrecommended for promotion.  Nevertheless,
the narrative reason for her  discharge  reflects  pregnancy  and  we
believe  the  records  should  reflect  an  RE  code  which  is  more
reflective of her service.  Additionally, we note her apparent desire
to serve in the armed services.  Therefore, we  believe  the  records
should be changed thereby affording her the opportunity to apply  for
a waiver to enlist in the  armed  forces.   Whether  or  not  she  is
successful  will  depend  on  the  needs  of  the  service  and   our
recommendation in no way guarantees  that  she  will  be  allowed  to
return to the Air Force or any branch of the service.  In view of the
foregoing, we recommend  her  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 15 August 1989, she was issued a Reenlistment  Eligibility
Code (RE) of “4E.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02857 in Executive Session on 25 February 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Gregory Petkoff, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                       Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Sep 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Jan 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 6 Feb 02 (sic).




                       GREGORY PETKOFF
                       Panel Chair






AFBCMR 02-02857
INDEX CODE:  110.00




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 APPLICANT, SSN, be corrected to show that  at  the
time  of  her  discharge  on  15  August  1989,  she  was  issued  a
Reenlistment Eligibility Code (RE) of “4E.”




                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                       Director
                       Air Force Review Boards Agency