RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00299

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 JULY 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3D (Completion of Required  Active
Service) be changed to 1J to allow enlistment in the Air Force  Reserves  or
Active Duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation from the Air Force was due to his  enlistment  coming  to  an
end. His discharge was honorable, and he never turned down an assignment  or
a temporary duty (TDY). He was never told that his ability  to  reenter  the
Armed Forces, Reserves or Active Duty, would be affected  by  anything  that
was listed on his DD Form 214. It is his intention to  join  the  Air  Force
Reserves or Active Duty Air Force as an officer, however, he  cannot  do  so
with a RE code of 3D.  Again,  he  was  never  presented  with  a  permanent
change of station (PCS) or a TDY that was turned down.

In support of his request, applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30  November  1994.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, having  assumed  that
grade effective and with a date of rank of   1 February 2001.

Approaching the end of his tour assigned to the  48th  Aircraft  Maintenance
Squadron, RAF Lakenheath, England, the applicant  signed  a  DEROS  election
option report on individual personnel (RIP).  On the back of  this  RIP,  he
initialed  the  statement,  “I  have  read  and  understand   the   returnee
counseling handout and DEROS options available to me.” Paragraph 4b  of  the
returnee counseling handout specifically states, “If, by  the  25th  day  of
the 8th month prior to your DEROS, you are eligible to obtain  retainability
and take no action, the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) will  accomplish  an
AF Form 674, PCS, TDY or Training Declination Statement, on your behalf.”

On 14 January 2003, the applicant signed and dated an AF Form 964, PCS,  TDY
or Training Declination Statement for CONUS  assignment  consideration.   He
also specifically initialed “I understand  that  my  declination  to  obtain
full retainability to fulfill an Air Force requirement is incompatible  with
a career or continuing a career in the Air Force. I have read the  rules  in
AFRs  35-16  and  39-29  pertaining  to  loss  of  reenlistment   (including
extension of enlistment) and promotion eligibility for  airmen  who  decline
retainabilty.”

Applicant  was  honorably  discharged  for  completion  of  required  active
service on 19 June 2003, after serving 8 years, 5  months  and  20  days  on
active duty.  He was issued an RE code 3D (Second-term or career airman  who
refused to get PCS or TDY assignment retainability.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE  recommends  the  application  be  denied  and  states  that  the
applicant fully understood the repercussion of declining  retainability  for
a valid Air Force need.

AFPC/DPPAE complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAAD  recommends  the  application  be  denied  and  states  that  the
applicant was provided an opportunity to obtain the  required  retainability
for a PCS assignment to a  valid  Air  Force  requirement.   The  referenced
documents indicate the applicant was informed of the  repercussions  related
to the available courses of action and  he  made  an  informed  decision  to
refuse to obtain the required retainability for a PCS assignment.  Based  on
the applicant’s decision, the appropriate reentry code (3D) was assigned  in
accordance with applicable Air Force guidance.

AFPC/DPAAD complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  1  April
2005 for review and response in 30 days.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________


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 an 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 recommendation of the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   In  this
respect,  the  Board  notes  that  the  applicant  signed  a  statement   of
understanding acknowledging his declination  to  obtain  full  retainability
would render him ineligible for reenlistment. As a result, he  was  assigned
an RE code of 3D.  It appears  the  applicant’s  RE code  was  appropriately
assigned and accurately reflected the circumstances of his  separation,  and
we find no evidence to indicate the assigned RE code was in error.  In  view
of the foregoing, and in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
conclude  that  no  basis  exists  to  recommend  favorable  action  on  the
applicant’s request that his RE code of 3D be changed.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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  AFBCMR
Docket  BC-2005-00299  in  Executive  Session  on  4  May  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
      Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAAD, dated 22 Feb 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.





                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair