RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01429
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Reenlistment  Eligibility  (RE)  code  be  changed   from   “2C,”
“Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge,” to one  in  the
“1” series to allow his reentry into the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The current high year of tenure policy unjustly forces members out  of
the service solely on the basis of a judged incompatibility  of  their
rank for their time in service and does not allow  for  assessment  of
the member’s potential for further service,  the  training  they  have
already received, and the cost of replacing them.

In support of his appeal, applicant has submitted a copy of his record
of performance.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 26  Mar  91  and
was promoted up to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-5).  A resume
of his last ten enlisted performance reports (EPRs) follows:

        Closeout Date                   Overall Rating

         15 Nov 93                           5
         15 Nov 94                           5
         29 Nov 95                           5
         26 Jun 96                           5
         26 Jun 97                           5
         11 May 98                           4
         11 May 99                           4
         11 May 00                           5
         14 Mar 01                           5
         31 Dec 01                           5
         31 Dec 02                           5

On 29 Sep 03, the applicant was tried by  special  court  martial  for
failing to obey a lawful general instruction by wrongfully engaging in
a sexual and  personal  social  relationship  with  an  airman  basic,
technical training student, while he was a member of the  staff.   The
applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the court members  to  a
reprimand, reduction to the grade of airman (Amn) (E-2), forfeiture of
$500.00 pay per month for 6 months, and confinement for 3 months.  The
approved sentence consisted  of  a  reprimand,  reduction  to  airman,
forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for 2 months, and confinement  for
2 months.  As a result of his reduction to the  grade  of  airman  and
having at least 12 years of  total  active  federal  military  service
(TAFMS), the applicant was advised on 22 Dec 03 that he  was  required
to separate from the Air Force no later than 22 Jan 04.  The applicant
was honorably discharged from the Air Force  on  22 Jan  04,  and  was
issued an RE Code of 2C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial  of  the   applicant’s   request.    In
accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Para
10.4.5, an individual demoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3)
or below and having 12 years of service but  less  than  16  years  of
service must be separated no later than 120 days after  the  effective
date of the demotion or on  his  or  her  date  of  separation  (DOS),
whichever is earlier.  Individuals whose DOS will not  allow  them  to
remain on active duty up to 120 days after demotion date to allow  for
appeal processing, separation processing, terminal  leave,  etc.,  may
extend their enlistment.  If  the  individual  is  not  appealing  the
demotion and has no leave to use or is selling back  leave,  then  the
individual should be separated within 30 days to allow for  separation
processing.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the  applicant  discusses
the time line of events related  to  the  discharge  action  initiated
against him.   He  states  that  his  administrative  discharge  board
commenced on 22 Dec 03, and that the majority  recommendation  of  the
board was to retain  him.   However,  his  Military  Personnel  Flight
notified him the next  day  after  his  board  that  although  he  was
recommended for retention, he would be discharged 120  days  from  the
date of his reduction in grade.  The applicant further indicates  that
he was not briefed on any avenue of appeal.  The  applicant  indicates
that he disagrees that has provided no facts warranting  a  change  to
his RE code.  He states that he has provided approximately 50 pages of
documentation relating to his 12 plus years of service.   He  believes
that it is a shame that after investing untold hundreds  of  thousands
of dollars to bring a person to a certain point in  their  career,  an
arbitrary decision would be made that because you are below a  certain
rank at a certain time in your career, you are of no  further  use  to
the service.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  Additionally, we took  note  of  the
applicant’s excellent record of performance.  While  regrettable  that
his services will be lost to the Air Force, in our  view,  his  career
was brought to an end as a direct result  of  the  misconduct  he  was
punished for.  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-2004-
01429 in Executive Session on 3 August 2004, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 May 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jun 04.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair