RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02219
            INDEX CODE:  112.00, 128.05,
                              131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 JUN 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty; his  records  be  corrected  to  show
“reenlistment” versus “reentry;” supplemental promotion to  the  grade
of technical sergeant (E-6); and, any other entitlements for the  lost
active duty time.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record is unjust due to the fact all of his attempts to extend and
reenlist were ignored and  he  was  involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable discharge and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)  code  of  1J.
His involuntary discharge caused a loss of over five  years  of  Total
Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS).

An   erroneous   code   was   placed   on    his    DD    Form    4/1,
Enlistment/Reenlistment document, preventing him from  being  eligible
for a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) entitlement and recoupment of
time lost when he reentered the Air Force.  His peers [enlisted during
the 1991-1993 timeframe and still on active duty]  have  achieved  the
ranks of E-5 and E-6.

In support of his request, the applicant submits  two  DD  Form  149s,
copies of his DD Form 214,  DD  Forms  4/1,  AF  Form  418  (Selective
Reenlistment  Program   Consideration),   documents   concerning   his
Inspector General (IG) complaints and additional documents  associated
with the issues cited in his contentions.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On  1  October  2003,  the  applicant  requested  his  15  June   2003
application be withdrawn.  On 3 May 2004,  the  applicant  resubmitted
his appeal for consideration by the Board.

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 9 April 1992 for a period of four years.  The  applicant’s  12 July
1994 request for an extension of his current enlistment, for a  period
of 11 months, was approved on 15 July 1994, which changed his date  of
separation (DOS) of 8 April 1996 to 8 March 1997.

The following information was extracted from applicant’s submission.

On 29  May  1996,  the  applicant  submitted  a  second  Extension  or
Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air  Force/Air
Force Reserve (AF Form 1411) requesting his current  enlistment  of  9
April 1992 be extended a period of  ten  months  for  the  purpose  of
qualifying for a CONUS Permanent Change of Station  (PCS)  assignment.
On 31 May 1996, his unit  commander  recommended  disapproval  of  the
extension.  Applicant submitted a response to the extension denial  on
18 June 1996.

On 15 August 1996, the applicant was considered  and  not  recommended
for reenlistment due to his numerous verbal and written counselings, a
Letter of Admonishment for  making  an  inaccurate  statement,  and  a
Letter of Reprimand for disobeying an order (AF  Form  418,  Selective
Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration).   He  was  nonselected  for
reenlistment by his unit commander due to  the  numerous  infractions,
his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 8  December  1995,  and
noncompliance  with  standards.   On  20 August  1996,  the  applicant
acknowledged the nonselection for reenlistment and, on 28 August 1996,
submitted his appeal of the reenlistment denial.  On 25 October  1996,
the  base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally
sufficient for forwarding to  the  appellate  authority  for  a  final
decision.   The  appellate   authority   approved   the   denial   for
reenlistment.

Applicant’s military personnel records reveal that, on 8  March  1997,
the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the Air
Force Reserve under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208  (completion  of
active required service).  He had completed a total of 4 years and  11
months and was serving in the grade of senior airman (E-4) at the time
of separation.  He received an RE Code  of  1J,  which  defined  means
"Eligible to reenlist but elects separation."

On 16 January 2000, the applicant was  relieved  from  his  assignment
with HQ ARPC, Obligated Reserve Section, and honorably discharged from
the Air Force Reserve.

On 17 October 2002, the applicant contracted  his  enlistment  in  the
Regular Air Force in the grade of E-4 for a period of four years.   He
was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with  an  effective
date and date of rank of 1 December 2003.

On 24 April 2003,  the  applicant  filed  an  Inspector  General  (IG)
inquiry concerning his reenlistment classification and its  associated
issues.  On 19 May 2003, SAF/IG notified the applicant that they  were
unable to favorably act on his 24 April 2003  Inspector  General  (IG)
complaint due to time limits imposed on IG actions.  SAF/IG  suggested
the applicant appeal to the AFBCMR for possible  relief.   On  9  July
2003, in response to the applicant’s 4 June 2003 electronic  mail  (e-
mail) to SAF/IG concerning his reenlistment status,  SAF/IG  suggested
his proper course of action was to seek relief through the AFBCMR.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPAOR states the applicant’s service dates and date  of  rank
to the grade of E-4 are correct.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAOR evaluation,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application concerning  his  RE  code  be
denied.   DPPAE  states  the  commander’s  action  to  nonselect   the
applicant for reenlistment  in  1996  was  justified.   The  applicant
received a promotion recommendation of  “3”  on  his  latest  EPR  and
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for  failing  to  obey  a  direct
order in June 1995.  DPPAE notes that errors were made in  this  case.
Specifically, the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) failed to update the
correct RE code of 2X [Defined  means  “Considered  but  not  selected
under  the  SRP  (Selective  Reenlistment  Program)”],  based  on  the
nonselection for reenlistment and the applicant’s  DD  Form  214  also
reflects the incorrect RE code of “1J” instead of “2X.”  DPPAE  states
the applicant reentered the Air  Force,  effective  17  October  2002,
based on an incorrect RE code.  The  HQ  AFPC/DPPAE  evaluation,  with
attachment, is at Exhibit D.


HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB  recommends  the  application   concerning   promotion
consideration for earlier cycles be denied.  DPPPWB states that, based
on the applicant’s original date of rank (DOR) to senior airman  (E-4)
of 9 April 1995, the first time he would have normally  been  eligible
for promotion consideration to E-5 was cycle 97E5.   However,  due  to
his 8 March 1997 separation date, he was ineligible.  In addition, the
applicant separated from active duty before testing for the cycle even
started (April - June 1997).  Based on the applicant’s reentry date of
17 October 2002 and adjusted DOR to E-4 of 17 November 2001, the first
time he was eligible for promotion consideration to E-5 was cycle 03E5
(promotions  effective  1  September  2003  -  1  August  2004).   The
applicant was selected for promotion and received a DOR of  1 December
2003.  The first time he will be eligible for promotion  consideration
to E-6 will be cycle 06E6 (promotions effective 1 August 2006 - 1 July
2007).  The applicant is not entitled to promotion  consideration  for
any earlier cycles as he was not on active duty between 8  March  1997
and 17 October 2002.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  27
August 2004 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (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.  In this  respect,  we  note  the
applicant appealed the commander’s decision to  nonrecommend  him  for
reenlistment to the group commander.  After obtaining a legal  review,
the group commander upheld the squadron commander’s decision  and  the
applicant  was  ultimately  separated.   In  addition,  we  note   the
applicant’s reentry into the Air  Force  was  based  on  an  erroneous
reenlistment  eligibility  code.   His  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, we do not find these uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale  provided
by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility.   Other  than  the
incorrect RE code, the separation appears to be in compliance with the
governing Air Force Instruction and we find no  evidence  to  indicate
the applicant’s release from active duty was inappropriate or that  he
was not afforded all the rights to which  entitled  in  appealing  the
commander’s decision.  We, therefore,  agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendations of the respective Air  Force  offices  and  adopt  the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an  error
or  an  injustice.   Accordingly,   the   applicant’s   requests   for
reinstatement,  supplemental   promotion   consideration   and   other
entitlements that he believes would have accrued had he  continued  to
serve on active duty during the break in his service are 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 19 April 2005, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-02219.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jun 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 8 Jun 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 Jul 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Aug 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 04.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair