RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00574
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 Aug 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3D,” “Second term or career
airman who refused to get PCS or  TDY  assignment  retainability,”  be
changed to one that will entitle him to separation pay at the time  of
his release from service on 9 Jan 05.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His “3D” RE code is incorrect because he did not voluntarily  separate
from the Air Force but was ineligible to reenlist due to an Article 15
he received, an unfavorable information file (UIF), and  being  placed
on the control roster.  When he received orders to Kunsan Air Base  in
May 04, he had no choice but to decline the orders due to  his  having
been placed on the control roster.  His records reflected at the  time
that he was “ineligible to reenlist and/or extend in the  Air  Force.”
He believes his records should reflect involuntary separation.  He has
been advised by AFPC there is no Article 15, UIF,  or  control  roster
reflected in the system and he was eligible to reenlist.  If there  is
no record of these actions in the system, he should be given back  all
of the things taken from him.

He served seven years and nine months and met the minimum  requirement
for separation pay.  He received  orders  nine  months  prior  to  his
separation date and never had enough retainability for the assignment.
 This should  not  take  precedence  over  his  separation  pay.   His
separation should be considered involuntary and make him eligible  for
separation pay.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a  copy  of  his  referral
Enlisted Performance Report closing 29 Dec 01, a copy of  the  Article
15 imposed on  him  on  3  Dec  01,  the  vacation  of  suspension  of
punishment under Article 15 on 1 Feb 02, a copy of a  memorandum  with
an unsigned indorsement indicating he  is  ineligible  to  extend  his
enlistment due to  an  Article  15  and  control  roster  action,  and
extracts  from   pertinent   directives   governing   separation   pay
entitlement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Air Force on 30 Apr 97.  On 26 Nov  01,  the
applicant, while serving in the grade  of  senior  airman  (SrA),  was
notified by his squadron  commander  he  was  considering  whether  to
punish him under Article 15 for violating a no contact order  and  for
dereliction of duty.  The applicant accepted  Article  15  proceedings
and made a personal appearance and submitted a written presentation in
his behalf.  On 3  Dec  01,  the  squadron  commander  determined  the
applicant had committed the alleged offenses.  He  imposed  punishment
consisting of a suspended reduction  to  the  grade  of  airman  first
class, forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for two months, restriction
to base for   14 days, and 30 days extra duty.  The applicant did  not
appeal.  On 18 Jan 02, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him
he was considering whether to vacate the suspended reduction to airman
first class imposed on 3 Dec 01 due to  the  applicant  disobeying  an
order.  On 1 Feb 02, the  applicant  notified  the  commander  he  had
consulted counsel and elected to make a personal appearance and submit
a  written  presentation.   The  commander  determined  the  applicant
committed the offense and the applicant was reduced to  the  grade  of
airman first class with a date of rank of 3 Dec 01 and effective  date
of 1 Feb 02.

A resume of the applicant’s EPRs follows:

      Closeout Date                     Overall Rating

        29 Dec 98                            3
        29 Dec 99                            4
        29 Dec 00                            5
       *29 Dec 01                            2
        29 Dec 02                            4
        29 Dec 03                            5

*  Referral Report

On 4 Mar 04, the applicant was recommended  for  reenlistment  by  his
supervisor via AF Form 418.  The applicant’s squadron commander signed
the AF  Form  418  selecting  him  for  reenlistment  on  16  Mar  04.
According to information provided in the advisory prepared by the  Air
Force Office of Primary Responsibility at Exhibit C, the applicant was
notified of an assignment on 12 May 04 and on 29  Sep  04  voluntarily
declined the assignment by signing AF Form 964, “PCS, TDY or  Training
Declination Statement.”  The applicant was separated on 9 Jan 05 after
completion of required active service with a “3D” RE code.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s appeal.  The applicant
was aware of the assignment and  the  implications  of  declining  the
assignment.  As a result of his decision to decline the assignment, he
was rendered ineligible to reenlist and was separated on 9 Jan 05.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant  states  he
received orders to Korea on 12 May  04  after  he  had  been  informed
earlier that his records reflected a “3D” RE  code  and  that  he  was
ineligible to reenlist.  After receiving the orders, he consulted with
the Reenlistments and Outbound Assignments Section  regarding  his  RE
code.  He was told that  it  was  just  some  form  of  “poor  timing”
administratively.  He was advised he had no  choice  but  to  formally
decline the orders he  received  due  to  his  inability  to  get  the
required retainability.

The applicant states personnel within the  military  personnel  flight
(MPF) advised him he should have never received the  orders  to  Korea
because his RE code had already been established and would not  change
during the time remaining on his enlistment.  Therefore, he signed the
AF Form 964 declining the orders.  Personnel within the MPF  told  him
that when he separated from the Air Force it would be involuntary  and
he would qualify for separation pay or fall under  the  Force  Shaping
Program.  He was also advised that the formality  of  having  declined
orders to Korea would be “completely irrelevant”  because  the  orders
should not have been issued in  the  first  place.   Further,  he  was
advised that his having declined orders did not take  precedence  over
his current eligibility status.  Applicant  states  that  at  no  time
prior to receiving orders to Korea was he  informed  that  he  was  or
would be selected for reenlistment.  He had been  officially  notified
by his commander, in person, that he was not  eligible  and  this  was
later reiterated by the MPF.   He  states  that  he  would  have  been
willing to accept orders to Korea, but was told that  the  information
in his electronic record prevented him for doing so.

The applicant states he was only  notified  in  Oct  04  that  he  was
recommended by his supervisor and selected by his commander.  This was
several months after he was told he had to turn down orders  to  Korea
and had already done so.  The applicant states  he  was  caught  in  a
seemingly “catch 22”  situation  because  of  inconsistencies  in  his
record.   The  applicant  states  that  if  there  is  any   form   of
documentation that bears his dated signature, which would support  any
other sequence of events than what he has given,  he  requests  he  be
furnished a copy of it.

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, the applicant has
failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claim he was not
eligible for the  assignment  to  Korea.   Although  the  applicant’s
signature is not present  on  the  AF  Form  418  selecting  him  for
reenlistment, we do not view this as conclusive he was not  aware  he
was eligible for reenlistment.   From  what  we  have  been  able  to
determine, it is not unusual for the AF Form 418 not  to  be  signed.
At any rate, the applicant’s selection for reassignment  put  him  on
alert her was eligible to reenlist.  Although he makes claims he  was
advised the  assignment  was  erroneous,  he  does  not  provide  any
corroborating evidence.  If  the  assignment  was  indeed  erroneous,
there  would  have  been  no  requirement  for  him  to  decline  the
assignment.  After the applicant  failed  to  get  retainability  and
declined the assignment, he was correctly awarded the “3D”  RE  code.
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-2005-
00574 in Executive Session on 3 August 2005, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 19 May 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair