RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02020
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  separation  code  of  “LBK”  (completion  of  required  active
service, and denied  reenlistment  with  half  separation  pay)  be
changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation code “LBK” should be changed since his RE code of 2X
was corrected by  the  AFBCMR.   This  is  required  to  facilitate
correcting the  separation  pay  he  received  at  discharge.   His
original RE code and evaluation are a  direct  result  of  reprisal
from his commanding officer, due to his Air Force  level  complaint
regarding Fraud, Waste and Abuse.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits an email to the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) requesting  a  correction  to
his separation pay; a copy of the DFAS evaluation from  his  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-00941 case file, and  other  previous  AFBCMR
case information.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 Feb 96, applicant was honorably  released  from  active  duty
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by  reason  of  completion  of
required active service, and was issued an RE code of 2X.   He  was
credited with 9 years, 11  months,  and  26  days  of  active  duty
service.

On 14 Feb 99, applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force
Reserve under the provisions of AFR 35-41.

In an application, dated 16 Jun 05,  the  applicant  requested  his
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2X (first-term,  second-term,
or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under
the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP))  be  changed  to  a  code
which would enable him to enlist in the  Air  National  Guard.   By
majority vote the Board  recommended  his  application  be  denied;
however, the Director, Air Force Review  Boards  Agency  determined
that he should be afforded a second chance to  serve  and  directed
his RE code be changed to “3K.”

In  his  application,  BC-2007-00941,  it  appears  the   applicant
requested a correction to his RE/SRB  he  received  at  separation.
However,  after  considering  the  evidence  provided,  the   Board
determined it was insufficient to find an error  or  injustice  and
denied the application.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOS reviewed this application and recommends denial.  The
High Year of Tenure (HYT) at the time of the applicant’s separation
from the Air Force was 10 years of total active service.  In  order
to separate under HYT, with entitlement to full separation pay, the
member must be fully qualified  for  retention,  other  than  being
denied continuation due  to  HYT,  and  must  remain  eligible  for
promotion.

The original separation code of “LBK” authorized the applicant half
separation pay at the time of his discharge.  DPSOS does  not  view
the Board’s decision to change the applicant’s RE code to “3K” as a
mandate to also change his separation code.  They may elect to make
no further change to the applicant’s current  separation  code,  or
the Board could direct the applicant’s separation code  be  changed
to “LCC” which is an appropriate  code  for  separation  under  HYT
which  would  authorize  the   applicant   full   separation   pay.
Additionally, the Board could direct his separation code be changed
to “KFF” with a narrative reason  for  separation  of  “Secretarial
Authority” and further direct whether recoupments of his separation
pay is appropriate.

HQ AFPC/DPSOS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSOA notes applicant’s RE code was corrected to “3K,”  and
recommends no further action  surrounding  his  RE  code.   If  the
applicant was paid a separation bonus as a result of  the  previous
2X RE code, then they recommend the  Board  consider  waiving  such
debt if recoupment actions have been initiated.

HQ AFPC/DPSOA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant
on 21 Nov 08 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case.  After reviewing the previous  decision  by  the  Board,  the
applicant’s RE code was changed  to  “3K”  to  afford  him  another
opportunity to serve, as a matter of clemency, not as a  result  of
being the victim  of  an  error  or  injustice  associated  to  any
evidence of reprisal.  It appears the applicant  now  believes  the
resulting change to his RE code  is  a  mandate  for  changing  his
reason for separation,  along  with  the  corresponding  separation
code.  However, the  applicant’s  reason  for  separation  and  the
separation code of “LBK” reflects that he  completed  the  required
active service and was denied reenlistment with entitlement to half
separation  pay.   Considered  alone,  we  conclude  the  discharge
proceedings  were  proper  and  the  reason  for   separation   was
appropriate to  the  existing  circumstances.   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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2008-02020 in Executive Session on 8  January  2009,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Michele M. Rachie, Member
      Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Sep 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 29 Sep 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 Oct 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 08.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair