RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01584
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 November 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be changed to reflect a different reenlistment eligibility  (RE)
code to enable him to join the National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was released under the strength reduction program; however,  the  day  he
was scheduled to depart, he was told he couldn’t leave  due  to  manning  in
his  career  field  so  he  requested  a  letter  non-recommending  him  for
reenlistment.  He has regretted this  decision  ever  since  and  wishes  to
serve his country again.  In  addition,  he  was  eligible  for,  but  never
promoted to senior airman; however, he was  never  given  a  reason  why  he
wasn’t promoted.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his DD  Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 June 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the  age
of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period  of  four  years.   He
was trained  as  a  Command  and  Control  Specialist.   The  applicant  was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first  class  (E-3)  effective
and with a date of rank of 10 December 1987.

On 16 May 1989, the applicant’s received an Article 15 for failure to go  at
the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  He received  punishment
consisting of forfeiture of $50 pay for one month and reduction in grade  to
airman, suspended until  21  November  1989,  at  which  time  it  would  be
remitted without further action, unless  sooner  vacated.   On  22  November
1989, his commander non-selected  the  applicant  for  reenlistment  stating
“his unwillingness to conform to  the  Air  Force  lifestyle  makes  him  an
unlikely candidate to remain in the Air Force.”

The applicant was honorably discharged effective 7 December 1989, under  the
Early Separation Program – Strength Reduction, with an RE code of 2X (first-
term,  second-term  or  career  airman  considered  but  not  selected   for
reenlistment under the SRP).  The separation code  is  directly  related  to
the reason and authority for his separation.  He served 3  years,  5  months
and 28 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPPPWB recommends the applicant’s request be time barred;  however,  if
the Board chooses to consider the applicant’s request, they recommend it  be
denied as there are no official documents to verify he was  recommended  for
promotion to  senior  airman.   DPPPWB  states  an  airman  first  class  is
promoted to senior airman at 36 months time-in-service and 20  months  time-
in-grade, or 28 months time-in-grade, whichever occurs first; and  has  been
recommended,  in  writing,  by  the  promotion  authority.   Based  on   the
applicant’s date of rank to airman first class, he would have normally  been
promoted to senior airman on 10  October  1988;  however,  DPPPWB  finds  no
written  recommendation  or  promotion  orders  in  his  records  officially
promoting him to senior airman.

The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  change  his  RE
code.  DPPAE states a review of the applicant’s  military  records  revealed
that  on  21   November   1989,   an   Air   Force   Form   418,   Selective
Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration, was initiated  by
his supervisor which, non-recommended him for reenlistment.  On 22  November
1989, the commander concurred with the supervisor’s recommendation and  non-
selected the applicant for reenlistment.   The  applicant  acknowledged  the
commander’s intent and opted not  to  appeal  the  decision.   Although  the
applicant states he requested the denial reenlistment  action,  the  remarks
made by the supervisor and  commander  clearly  show  his  unwillingness  to
comply with military standards.  The applicant failed on numerous  occasions
to  comply  with  pre-departure  medical  and  dental  requirements,   which
resulted in his assignment cancellation and disciplinary action.

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  23
June 2006, for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The  applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case  file  was
erroneous, his substantial rights were  violated,  or  that  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  We note the  applicant’s  contentions
that he requested his commander to non-recommend him for  enlistment  so  he
could separate during a strength reduction program in spite  of  a  shortage
in his  career  field;  however,  evidence  of  record  indicates  his  non-
selection  for  reenlistment  was  intended  by  his   commander   for   the
applicant’s unwillingness to comply with military standards.  Therefore,  we
find the RE code which was issued at the time of the applicant’s  separation
accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do  not  find
this code to be in error or unjust.  In regard to  the  applicant’s  request
for promotion to senior airmen, we note that while the applicant had  enough
time-in-grade and time-in-service to be eligible for promotion, we  find  no
evidence that his commander recommended him for promotion.  In view  of  the
foregoing and absence evidence to the contrary, we conclude  that  no  basis
exists  upon  which  to  recommend  favorable  action  on  the   applicant’s
requests.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 24 August 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2006-01584:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 May 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Jun 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Jun 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair