RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03677
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 JUN 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from “3” to “1”  to  allow
him to reenter the Air Force (AF).

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the Code (Assignment Availability Code  (AAC))  37  he  received
should have been removed before he was discharged and is the reason  why  he
can’t reenter the AF.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on  16 August  1995,
as an airman  basic  (AB)  for  a  period  of  four  years.   The  applicant
reenlisted on 4 July 1999 for an additional four years and  on  9  September
2000, he extended for four months to qualify for an overseas assignment.

On 15 October 2002, due to a medical condition the applicant was  placed  on
a Physical Profile with a Code 37, no deployment, no PCS, pending a  medical
evaluation  board  (MEB).   The  applicant  was  diagnosed  with   perennial
allergic rhinitis.  The Physical Profile dated  5  November  2002,  reflects
the applicant was world wide qualified and removal of Code 37.

On 3 November 2003, the applicant was honorably discharged from active  duty
with an RE code of “3D,” Second-term or career airman  who  refused  to  get
Permanent Change  of  Station  (PCS)  or  Temporary  Duty  (TDY)  assignment
retainability.  He served 8 years, 2 months and 18 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the requested relief be denied.   DPPAE  states  a
Code 37 denotes a servicemember who is deferred from PCS assignment pending
results of an MEB or PEB.  The code can not exceed a period  of  12  months
unless otherwise directed by HQ AFPC.  They further state the RE  code  the
applicant received in no way relates to the temporary Code 37.  In fact  he
received the RE code 3D because he failed to get retainability for  PCS  or
TDY.  The Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects the applicant failed to  get
retainability for PCS or TDY by the remarks  code  80  which  reflects  the
servicemember failed to get  retainability  for  PCS  or  TDY.   Applicants
assigned  overseas  who  fail  to  get  the  required   retainability   are
automatically extended  in  the  overseas  area  to  match  their  date  of
separation.  The applicant failed to get retainability  which  resulted  in
his RE code; this is clearly evident by his type of separation  (discharge)
and that he was an overseas returnee separated.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPAAS3 recommends the applicant’s request to change his RE code  be
denied.   DPAAS3  states  the  applicant  needed  to   obtain   12   months
retainability within 30 days of his Date Eligible for Return from  Overseas
(DEROS) Option Report of Individual Person (RIP).   The  PDS  reflects  the
code 37 was removed in November 2002, enabling the applicant to reenlist or
extend for retainability.  The retainability declination  was  updated  the
same month, reflecting a decision to not obtain the  additional  12  months
for a service-directed PCS.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  14
April 2006, for review and response.  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 an injustice.  After careful consideration  of  the
circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that the reenlistment  code
he received upon  separation  from  active  duty  is  in  error  or  unjust.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the  opinions
and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error
or an injustice.  The applicant believes the AAC 37 was  the  cause  of  him
receiving the RE code 3D.  The AAC 37 was placed on the applicant’s  records
due to a medical condition; however, the code was removed in November  2002.
 The RE code does not reflect upon the AAC.  The applicant received  the  3D
RE code due to his refusal to obtain retainability for  an  assignment.   He
was separated from the Air Force under the provisions of  AFI  36-3208  with
an RE code of 3D, which indicates he was a second-term or career airman  who
refused to get PCS or TDY assignment retainability.   We  further  note  the
applicant’s reenlistment code 3D is a waiverable  code  and  depending  upon
the needs  of  the  service  the  applicant  may  be  allowed  to  reenlist.
Therefore, in view of the above and  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-2005-03677
in Executive Session on 6 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                       Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 22 Feb 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAAS3, dated 7 Apr 06
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06.




                                             JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                             Panel Chair