RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01479
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED


            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 SEP 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed and  the  separation
program designator (SPD) be removed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code  “2U”  is  assigned  to  personnel  who  served  at  least
20 years.  He did not serve 12 years  of  active  duty  without  being
promoted and should not have been forced to separate.

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

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
22 May 1980, and was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  senior
airman.  On 30 January 1991, he was separated under the provisions  of
AFR 39-10, Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen  (overseas  returnee
lacks retainability for assignment), with an honorable discharge.

He received an RE code of 2U ”Airman possesses a high year  of  tenure
(HYT) date of at least 20 years total active federal military  service
(TAFMS), is within 23 months of HYT date,  and  more  than  13  months
remaining until date of  separation.”   He  received  an  SPD  of  JBM
“Overseas returnee lacks retainability for assignment.”  He  served  a
total of 11 years, 1 month, and 9 days total active duty service.

On 14 May 1990, the Air Force announced personnel policy  changes  and
actions necessary for transitioning to a smaller force.  The  HYT  for
sergeant (E-4) was reduced from 20 to  10  years  effective  1  August
1991, which allowed all affected personnel  two  additional  promotion
opportunities.

DPPAE reviewed the case and determined that applicant’s RE code should
be changed to 4D “Grade is senior airman  or  sergeant,  completed  at
least 9 years TAFMS, but fewer than 16 years TAFMS, and has  not  been
selected for promotion  to  staff  sergeant.”   His  records  will  be
corrected when the case is returned from the Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  the  airman  who  are
considered for PCS in a mandatory move  status  such  as  during  base
closure, unit deactivation, or when it is determined to be in the best
interest of the Air Force and found ineligible because they  have  too
little service  retainability  may  be  separated  PETS.   Airman  are
qualified  for  separation  when  they  have   less   than   12 months
retainability and refuse to obtain the retainability or are ineligible
to obtain retainability for a permanent change of station (PCS).   The
applicant was not  selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant and he had more than 10 years  of  active  military  service.
His date effective return from overseas was 30 June 1991 and his  date
of separation was 30 June 1991, based on the fact  he  had  served  on
active duty for more than 10 years, but less than 16  years.   He  had
insufficient retainability for the PCS move back to the United States.
 His SPN was established as JBM and is correct.

The DPPRS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
20 June 2007, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 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 an error or injustice to  warrant  changing  his  SPD
code.  The Board notes the applicant’s RE code is incorrect  and  will
be administratively corrected to reflect a code of 4D “Grade is senior
airman or sergeant, completed at least nine  years  TAFMS,  but  fewer
than 16 years TAFMS, and has not been selected for promotion to  staff
sergeant.”  After careful consideration of the available evidence, the
Board found no  indication  that  the  actions  taken  to  affect  his
discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing
regulations at the  time,  or  that  the  actions  taken  against  the
applicant were unjust.  Therefore, the Board agrees with the  opinions
and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary  responsibility
and adopts its rationale as the basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   In  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the  Board  finds  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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  issue(s)   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-2007-
01479 in Executive Session on 2 August 2007, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Memo, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Jun 07, w/atch.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAFMRBR, dated 20 Jun 07.



      WAYNE R. GRACIE
      Panel Chair