RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01955
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  of  2X  be  changed  to  allow
eligibility to reenlist in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not “put out” of the Air Force.  He made a mistake  by  getting
out of the Air Force and would like to reenlist, but he has the  wrong
RE code.

In support of his request, applicant  submits  a  personal  statement,
copies of his DD Form 214 and  an  expired  Air  Force  identification
card.  The applicant’s complete submission, with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his  enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on
13 January 1999 in the grade of airman basic (E-1)  for  a  period  of
four years.  He was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  senior
airman (E-4), with an effective date and date of rank  of  13  January
2002.

Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

              28 Sep 00      3 - Consider for promotion (grade of E-3)
              28 Sep 01      3
            * 28 Sep 02      2 - Not Recommended (grade of E-4)

*Referral EPR

On  16  September  2002,  the  applicant  was  not   recommended   for
reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment  Program  (SRP)  by  his
supervisor/rater.   He  was  nonselected  for  reenlistment   by   his
commander due to his behavior  and  financial  irresponsibility.   The
applicant acknowledged receipt of the nonselection for reenlistment on
17 September 2002 and, on 20 September  2002,  he  indicated  that  he
intended to appeal the decision.  However, the applicant’s appeal  was
not received by the appeal date, which was 30 September 2002.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 12 January  2003  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (completion of required active service).  He
had completed a total of four years and was serving in  the  grade  of
senior airman (E-4) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE  Code
of 2X, which defined means "First term, second-term, or career  airman
considered but not selected for reenlistment under the SRP."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be  denied.   DPPRS  believes
the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   DPPRS  states  that  the
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided  no
facts warranting  a  change  in  his  discharge.   The  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied.  DPPAE states that
the applicant was denied reenlistment by his  commander  per  AF  Form
418, Selective Reenlistment  Program  Consideration,  on  16 September
2002.  The applicant has a history of disciplinary  problems  such  as
failure to  pay  his  just  debts  off-duty  and  other  instances  of
financial irresponsibility.   The  RE  code  is  illustrative  of  the
applicant’s status at the time of his discharge from  the  Air  Force.
The RE 2X code is correct.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions  and  indicated  that  he
received a “raw deal” while serving in the Air Force.  He  had  a  few
stumbling blocks, but he  overcame  them.   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.  Applicant’s supporting documents
were thoroughly reviewed.  However, these documents failed to convince
us that the applicant was the victim of an  error  or  injustice  with
regard to the actions which transpired  during  his  military  career.
Applicant’s RE code of 2X accurately describes  the  circumstances  of
his separation; i.e., he was denied reenlistment  eligibility  through
the  Selective  Reenlistment  Program  (SRP).   In   his   denial   of
reenlistment,  the  unit  commander  made  reference  to   applicant’s
financial  irresponsibility  and  that  his   behavior   resulted   in
disciplinary actions.  In addition,  we  noted  that  the  applicant’s
Enlisted  Performance  Reports  made  reference   to   his   financial
irresponsibility, which resulted  in  two  Letters  of  Reprimand,  an
Unfavorable Information File  (UIF)  and  correctional  custody.   The
applicant has provided no evidence showing that his  nonselection  for
reenlistment was contrary to the governing Air  Force  instruction  in
effect at the time or that it was based on erroneous information.   In
view of the foregoing,  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  that  the
assigned RE code is in error or unjust, we find no  basis  to  disturb
the existing record.

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  issue(s)   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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 25 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                  Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01955.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 May 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Jul 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 11 Aug 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 10 Sep 03.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair