RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00469
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3D”, “Second term or career
airman who refused to get PCS or  TDY  assignment  retainability”,  be
changed to one that will allow him to reenlist in the Air force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He only verbally requested a change in the location of  his  follow-on
assignment after completion of his overseas assignment, which resulted
in an erroneous RE code being updated in his records.

There is no signed AF Form 964, “PCS,  TDY,  OR  TRAINING  DECLINATION
STATEMENT”, in his records as required by Air Force instructions.

His Air Force Specialty, Air Force Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  1A4XX,  is
only  72%  manned  and  his  reenlistment  will  help  with  the  high
operations tempo.

In support of his appeal, the  applicant  has  provided  a  letter  of
support from his former commander at his last Air Force assignment and
copies of his Air Force performance reports.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

He applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 6 Jun 85.  He was
promoted up to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt).  According to a
reaccomplished AF Form  964,  dated  10  Jan  03,  the  applicant  was
selected for an assignment to Robins Air Force Base, but  declined  to
get the necessary retainability.  The applicant was discharged  on  10
Jan 03 in the grade of TSgt with 17 years, 7 months,  and  5  days  of
military  service.   Additional  facts  relevant  to  this  case   are
contained in the evaluations prepared by the  appropriate  offices  of
the Air Force found at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  In accordance
(IAW) with AFI 36-2110, proper procedures were followed regarding  the
applicant’s discharge and subsequent RE code.  The applicant  did  not
include all the facts in his case and was thoroughly  briefed  on  the
ramifications for failing to acquire the needed retainability  for  an
assignment.  AFPC/DPAO has attached an in-depth summary,  prepared  by
AFPC/DPAOM, of the actions that occurred in the applicant’s  case  and
addresses specific contentions.  For example, AFPC/DPAOM  states  that
the applicant’s career field was 85% at the time of his assignment and
has increased to 95% today.  They also  indicate  that  they  did  not
change the applicant’s assignment until they knew for a fact  that  he
had been counseled regarding the ramifications  of  turning  down  the
assignment to Robins AFB.  They also talked to the Americam  Component
Operations Chief and personnel at the military personnel flight  (MPF)
to ensure that the applicant had been counseled.

The complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends that  the  applicant’s  request  be  denied.   A
review of the applicant’s records revealed that the applicant did  not
obtain the required 12 months retainability and  therefore,  his  date
expected return from overseas (DEROS)  was  automatically  established
IAW AFI 36-2110.  The applicant had two separate assignments to go  to
Robins  AFB  and  on  both  occasions  refused   to   get   sufficient
retainability.  In order to return to the CONUS, members must have  or
retain 12 months service retainability no later  than  30  days  after
receipt of their DEROS Election Option  or  Forecast  Notification  or
apply for separation.  The applicant did not  comply  with  any  these
requirements while stationed at his overseas assignment.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the  applicant  provides
his summary of the events that took place in his case.  The  applicant
rebuts specific contentions made in the in-depth summary  provided  by
AFPC/DPAOM.  The applicant indicates that in all of the correspondence
and e-mail traffic provided to him, nowhere  does  it  state  that  he
signed the AF Form 964.

The applicant’s complete submission 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant  emphasizes  the  fact
that there is not an Air Force Form 964 in his records.   However,  he
does not make a compelling case that he never signed an Air Force Form
964.  We note that the applicant already has a waiverable RE code  and
has not provided any evidence that he has  applied  for  a  waiver  to
reenlist and been denied.  Therefore, in the absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
00469 in Executive Session on 19 June 2003, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAO, dated 14 Mar 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 20 May 03.



                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair