RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2005-
02754
                                             INDEX  CODE:   100.00,
110.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 MARCH 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She has no record of incidents that would cause her to  receive  an
RE code of  “2Y”  or  a  separation  code  of  “K13.”   It  is  her
understanding there are no such codes.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  2  Oct  80,  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 17 Mar 83, applicant executed an  AF  Form  1411  (Extension  or
Cancellation  of  Extensions  of  Enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air
Force/Air Force Reserve), extending her enlistment of 2 Oct  80  by
seven months to  qualify  for  an  overseas  PCS  assignment.   The
applicant’s new date of separation was established as 1 May 85.

On 2 May 83, applicant executed an  AF  Form  1411,  extending  her
enlistment of 2 Oct 80 by one month to qualify for an overseas  PCS
assignment.  The applicant’s new date of separation was established
as 1 Jun 85.

The following AF Forms 418, Selective  Reenlistment/Noncommissioned
Officer Status Consideration, were on file in the master  personnel
record.

      1)  AF Form 418, dated 11 Dec 84, indicated applicant did not
meet  Air  Force  weight  standards  and  was  denied  NCO  status.
Applicant did not appeal the decision.

      2)  AF Form  418,  dated  11  Mar  85,  approved  applicant’s
appointment  to  NCO  status  and  selected   the   applicant   for
reenlistment.

      3)  AF Form 418, dated 1  Apr  85,  vacated  the  applicant’s
appointment to NCO status and her selection for reenlistment  based
on the applicant exceeding her maximum allowable weight.  Applicant
did not appeal the decision.

On 1 Jun 85, the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10, with separation code  K13  (Completion  of
Extended Enlistment), and was issued an RE code of  2Y  (A  second-
term or career airman considered but not selected for  NCO  status,
or had vacated NCO status under AFR 39-13).  She was credited  with
4 years, 7 months, and 29 days of active military service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and  states,  in
part, based on the documentation on file in  the  master  personnel
records, the discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.

According to documentation on file in the master personnel records,
applicant had been separated from her husband due to her assignment
and elected to separate upon her date of separation (1 Jun 85).

Applicant was  discharged  effective  1  Jun  85,  which  was  upon
completion of her  extended  enlistment.   The  Separation  Program
Designator (SPD)  “K13”  indicates  applicant  was  separated  upon
completion of her extended enlistment and is the correct SPD code.

The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the request be denied and states, after  a
review of the applicant’s personnel record, there  was  nothing  in
the record to support the changes requested.

The applicant was  discharged  on  1  Jun  85,  with  an  honorable
character of service after serving 4 years, 7 months, and  29  days
of service.  She received an RE code of 2Y “A second-term or career
airman considered but not selected for NCO status, or  had  vacated
NCO status under AFR 39-13.”

The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 7 Oct 05, copies of the Air Force evaluation’s were forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error  or  injustice.   After  careful
review of the  evidence  of  record,  it  appears  the  applicant’s
separation was in compliance with the governing regulation  and  we
find no evidence to indicate her separation from the Air Force  was
inappropriate.  Her assigned RE code and separation code accurately
reflect her honorable separation for completed extended enlistment.
 We find no evidence of error in this case,  and  after  thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that she has
suffered an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available  evidence
of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably  consider  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issues  involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is 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 Docket Number BC-2005-
02754  in  Executive  Session  on  10  November  2005,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 05.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Sep 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 22 Sep 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Oct 05.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair