RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03182

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4E  be changed to 1J.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code should be changed to allow him to join  the  Reserves  since  he
was honorably discharged  and  completed  four  years  of  inactive  reserve
service.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in  conjunction
with his 6 August 2002 separation.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  23  April  1998,  for  a
period of four years.

On 15 March 2000, the commander notified the  applicant  of  his  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment under  Article  15  of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Articles 92  and  108.   Specifically,
for  failing  to  obey  a  lawful  order  on  1 March  2000,  by  wrongfully
disconnecting the fire  alarm  in  a  dormitory  room,  and  without  proper
authority, willfully damaging by  disconnecting  the  fire  alarm,  military
property of the United States.  After consulting legal  counsel,  he  waived
his  right  to  a  trial  by  court-martial  and  accepted  the  nonjudicial
punishment.   After   considering   the   applicant’s   oral   and   written
submissions, on 20 March 2000, the commander determined that he  did  commit
one or more of the alleged offenses and imposed the nonjudicial  punishment.
  The  punishment  consisted  of  reduction  to  the  grade  of  airman  and
forfeiture of $250.00 pay, suspended until 21 May 2000,  at  which  time  it
would be remitted  without  further  action,  unless  sooner  vacated.   The
suspension was conditioned on him submitting to his First Sergeant  by  1200
hours on 15 April 2000 and 15 May 2000 a money order  made  payable  to  the
U.S. Treasury in the amount of 66.29 British sterling for a total of  132.57
British sterling for the damage caused by disconnecting the fire alarm.   He
did not appeal the punishment.

On 20 May  2002,  the  commander  notified  him  of  his  intent  to  impose
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ  for  violating  Article
92.  Specifically, for being derelict in the performance of  his  duties  by
negligently  failing  to  comply  with  Lakenheath  Instruction  32-6002  by
wrongfully possessing a pellet gun, a bomb dummy unit, 20 sharpened  arrows,
3 silver throwing knives, 2  U.S.  government  9mm  15  round  magazines,  1
silver throwing star, one silver machete, several black cat  fire  crackers,
1 pellet rifle, 1 live  green  smoke  grenade,  and  1  road  flare.   After
consulting legal counsel, he waived his right to a  trial  by  court-martial
and accepted the nonjudicial punishment.  After considering the  applicant’s
oral and written submissions, on 24 May 2002, the commander determined  that
he did commit the alleged offense and imposed  the  nonjudicial  punishment.
The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman and  forfeiture
of $619.65 pay.  He did not appeal the punishment.

He was honorably discharged on 6 August 2002, under the  provisions  of  AFI
36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service) and was assigned an RE  code
of 4E (i.e., Grade is airman first class or below and  airman  completed  31
or more months). He completed four years of active service,  with  3  months
and 14  days  of  prior  inactive  service.   The  DD  Form  214  issued  in
conjunction with his 6 August 2002 separation incorrectly reflected that  he
was released from active duty in the grade of airman first  class;  however,
the DD Form 214 has  been  administratively  corrected  to  reflect  he  was
discharged in the grade of airman.

Applicant’s performance profile follows:

         PERIOD ENDING                 OVERALL EVALUATION

           30 May 00 (Referral)                3
           30 May 01                           3

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP recommends the application be denied and states, in  part,  that
the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and within the  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.

The AFPC/DPPRSP evaluation 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 31 October 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However,  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice to  warrant  upgrading  the  applicant’s  RE
Code.  After thoroughly reviewing  the  available  evidence  of  record  and
noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error  or
injustice.  In this respect, the discharge appears to be in compliance  with
the governing instruction in effect at the  time  of  his  separation.   The
applicant has provided no evidence  to  indicate  that  his  separation  was
inappropriate.  His assigned RE code of 4E accurately reflects that  he  was
an airman first class who completed more than 31 months of  service  at  the
time of his separation.   Furthermore,  while  RE  code  4E  bars  immediate
reenlistment it is a code that can be waived for  prior  service  enlistment
consideration, provided he  meets  all  other  requirements  for  enlistment
under an existing prior service program.  Whether or not  he  is  successful
will depend on the needs of the service and there is no  guarantee  that  he
will be allowed to return to any branch of the service.   Absent  persuasive
evidence  applicant  was  denied  rights  to  which  entitled,   appropriate
regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards  were  not  applied,
we find no basis to disturb the existing record.

_________________________________________________________________


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-2003-03182
in Executive Session on 7 January 2004, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Albert F. Lowas Jr., Panel Chair
                       Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                       Mr. Mike Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 8 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.




                                   ALBERT F. LOWAS JR.
                                   Panel Chair