RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01150
                                              INDEX  CODE:    100.00,
110.00
                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 OCTOBER 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She separated from the military because of pregnancy, not because  of
serving on the control roster.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a  copy  of  her  DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  22  Jan  02,  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.  Her highest grade
held was airman first class.

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

      PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

       22 SEP 03                             4
       07 JUL 04                             3

On 17 Jun 05, the applicant was honorably released from  active  duty
and transferred to the USAFR under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,
with a separation code of MDF (Pregnancy or Childbirth), and given an
RE code of  4I  (Serving  on  Control  Roster).   The  applicant  was
credited with 3 years, 4 months,  and  26  days  of  active  military
service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application  be  denied.   DPPAE  states
even though the applicant was pregnant, she was  serving  on  control
roster action at the time of her release.  Therefore, the RE code  of
4I is correct.

The applicant was separated with RE code of 4I as reflected on the AF
Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation (Atch 1).
DPPAE states IAW AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment  in  the  USAF  states  RE
Codes are updated in  the  personnel  data  system  (PDS)  using  the
priority sequence  2#,  4#,  3#,  and  1#  (Atch  2).   Additionally,
personnel rosters prepared on 17 Jun 2005 show the applicant  was  in
fact serving on the control roster at the time of her  release  (Atch
3).

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

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be  denied  and  states,  in
part, that based  on  the  documentation  on  file  in  the  Military
Personnel Data System (MilPDS) the separation was consistent with the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation.
The discharge was within the discretion of the separation  authority.
The applicant’s separation code (MDF) indicates she was separated due
to pregnancy or childbirth and the reenlistment eligibility code (4I)
indicates she was serving on the control roster at the  time  of  her
release.  Additionally, the applicant did not submit any evidence  or
identify any errors or injustices that  occurred  in  the  separation
processing.  The Separation Program Designator (SPD) and reenlistment
eligibility code are correct and no corrective action is required.

DPPRS noted there is  no  AF  IMT  31,  Airman’s  Request  for  Early
Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation  on  file
in the master personnel  records.   The  MilPDS  (Atch  1)  indicates
applicant  voluntarily  submitted  a  request   for   separation   in
accordance  with  AFI   36-3208,   paragraph   3.17   (pregnancy   or
childbirth).  Her voluntary application for separation  was  approved
with an effective date of separation of 17 Jun 05.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 Jun 06, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the
applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  To  date,  a  reply
has not been received (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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  At  the  time  of  the  applicant’s
release from active duty, she was furnished  an  RE  code  predicated
upon the  quality  of  her  service  and  the  circumstances  of  her
separation.  The assigned RE code of 4I accurately reflects that  she
was serving on the control roster when she  separated.   Furthermore,
we note that the applicant’s current RE code of 4I is a code that can
be waived for prior service enlistment  consideration,  provided  she
meets all other requirements for enlistment under an  existing  prior
service program, and depending on the needs of the service.  In  view
of the foregoing, 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-2006-01150 in  Executive  Session  on  13  July  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number
BC-2006-01150 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 May 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 May 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jun 06.




                                                RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                                Panel Chair