RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2005-
03469
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.06

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 JULY 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2X be  changed  to  allow
reentry into the military.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did not realize the impact  her  RE  code  would  have  on  her
decision to re-enlist.

When she arrived at her final duty station, her intentions were  to
submit a request for an early release date of six months  prior  to
her expiration term of service (ETS) in  order  to  attend  college
during the spring semester  of  January  2001.   She  informed  her
supervisor of her decision shortly after her arrival.  Based on her
objective,  her  supervisor  did  not  support  her   plans.    Her
supervisor decided that she did not need  the  training  in  flight
line equipment and aircraft inspections within the shop because  of
her plans to separate.  In January of 2001, she submitted an  early
withdrawal packet.  Her packet was declined due to an issue of low-
manning which would  occur  if  she  was  approved  for  the  early
release.

Her wing was scheduled for an ORI inspection that  year.   She  was
attending college classes during that time, and her new  supervisor
felt her classes would interfere with her training.  Based  on  the
short amount of time her enlistment was scheduled  for,  she  asked
her First Sergeant if she could be moved to  a  detail  during  her
last six months.  The supervisor agreed to the decision  and  moved
her to the wing.  She asked her First Sergeant if there would be  a
reprimand for her decision, the First Sergeant said no.

Approximately two days later she was informed she would receive  an
RE code on her DD Form 214.  She believes her re-enlistment code is
incorrect because she was told in the beginning of her  request  to
be reassigned, that she  would  suffer  no  consequences.   She  is
currently employed as a Human Resources Assistant  working  in  the
DD214 section.  Through this position,  she  became  aware  of  the
appeals process and would now like her RE code corrected.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30  Jul  97,  for  a
period of four years in the grade of  airman.   Her  highest  grade
held was senior airman.

Applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL PROMOTION EVALUATION

      29 Mar 99                                    4
      01 Nov 99                                    4
      01 Nov 00                                    3

AF Form 418 (Selective Reenlistment Program  Consideration),  dated
1 Feb 01, reflects the applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her
for reenlistment, stating  the  member  has  insisted  she  is  not
capable of performing the Life Support duties that are required  of
her.  On numerous occasions the member stated an uncertainty in the
integrity of  the  work  she  performs  on  pilot  life  sustaining
equipment.  The member has continually been below average  on  both
shop and wing quality assurance standards on g-suit equipment.  She
has been properly trained,  and  offered  all  additional  training
needed for her 5-skill  level  upgrade,  but  the  applicant  still
insists that she is not capable of accomplishing her  Life  Support
duties.  The applicant’s military bearing and respect for authority
have also been an issue since being under his supervision.  He also
stated despite numerous counseling attempts, this still remains  an
issue.   The  applicant’s  unit  commander   concurred   with   the
supervisor and did not select the applicant for  reenlistment.   He
stated  the  applicant  refuses  to  upgrade  train   despite   new
leadership and a training program in her  section.   The  applicant
did not appeal the decision.

On 17 Apr 01, applicant submitted an AF Form 31,  Airman’s  Request
for  Early  Separation/Separation  Based  on  Change   in   Service
Obligation, requesting to be separated under the  Early  Separation
for Education Program.  The commander  of  the  Military  Personnel
Flight (MPF) approved the request for separation on 9 May 01.

On 29 Jul 01, the applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active  Service),
and furnished an RE code of 2X (First-term, second term, or  career
airman considered but  not  selected  for  reenlistment  under  the
Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)).  The applicant was  credited
with four years of active military service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied and  states,  in
part, after a review of the  statement/document  submitted  by  the
applicant and a review of her military personnel record, they found
no evidence the applicant’s RE code was  due  to  her  request  for
reassignment.  The applicant’s failure to upgrade  was  the  factor
cited by the commander to deny her reenlistment, as  shown  by  the
Training Status Identifier T—“Withdrawn from Training – Failure  to
Progress” and comments on the AF Form 418.  The applicant had  been
entered into upgrade  training  since  17  Mar  98  and  failed  to
complete/qualify in the required Air Force Specialty for over three
years.  The commanders considered the applicant’s ability (or  lack
of) to meet the required training and duty  performance  levels  as
the reason to deny reenlistment.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with  attachments,  is
at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 9 Dec 05, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D.)

___________________________________________________________________

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.   At  the  time  a
member is separated from the Air Force, they are  furnished  an  RE
Code  predicated  upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and   the
circumstances of their separation.  The assigned code reflects  the
Air Force’s position  regarding  whether  or  not,  or  under  what
circumstances, the individual should be allowed to reenlist.  After
careful review of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that
the assigned RE Code is in error or unjust or that  an  upgrade  is
warranted.  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-
03469 in Executive Session on 24 January 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 05.




                                   MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair