RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04639

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His reentry (RE) code of 4L (Separated commissioning program 
eliminee OTS, AECP and so on) be changed to 1J (Eligible to 
reenlist, but elects separation) to allow immediate 
reenlistment.

2.  His uncharacterized service characterization be upgraded to 
honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While serving with the Connecticut Air National Guard (ANG) he 
was accepted into the Air Force Academy.  After a few weeks at 
the Academy, he requested to resign due to family issues.  
During his out processing he inquired about returning to the ANG 
to complete his enlistment.  He was told that guardsmen were not 
sent back to their unit and that he could pursue reenlistment 
after his discharge from the Academy.

When he tried to reenlist in the ANG, he was told he was 
ineligible to reenlist due to his RE code of 4L, which falls 
under an involuntary separation.  He was surprised by this since 
he had voluntarily separated from the Academy.

He believes he should have received an honorable discharge from 
the Academy due to his prior service and been allowed to 
complete his enlistment with ANG.

His ANG recruiter contacted the Academy regarding his RE code 
and was told all cadets are discharged with such a code, 
regardless of whether it was voluntary or involuntary.  He 
believes the cart blanche process the Academy uses to separate 
disenrolled cadets is unjust.  He is requesting an RE code that 
would allow him to return to the ANG to complete his service 
commitment without the requirement of a higher headquarters 
level waiver, along with an honorable service characterization 
based on his prior service record.

Lastly, an RE code needs to be established for individuals who 
voluntarily separate and have a service commitment to another 
component, and are allowed to transfer back, rather than 
incurring a break in service and bad RE code.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 Jan 11, the applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard 
(ANG) for a period of six years.  He was honorably discharged on 
26 Jun 13 and was credited with two years, five months and two 
days of service.

On 27 Jun 13, the applicant entered the Air Force Academy.  On 
9 Jul 13, the applicant voluntarily requested to be disenrolled 
from the Academy.  

On 24 Jul 13, the applicant was disenrolled from the Academy and 
furnished an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service 
characterization with an RE code of 4L (Separated commissioning 
program eliminee).


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFA/A1A recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  While AFI 36-3504 covers cadet 
disenrollments, it does not address a basic cadet reenlisting in 
the Air Force.  AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States 
Air Force, addresses the suitability for individuals reenlisting 
in the Air Force.  The applicant was separated with the 
appropriate RE code in accordance with Air Force policy.  The RE 
code 4L is the most applicable code given for an eliminee from 
the Air Force Academy.  

Furthermore, prior enlisted basic cadets who voluntarily resign 
will receive a characterization as determined by the 
disenrollment decision authority.  The applicant received an 
honorable discharge from the ANG; however, his DD Form 214 only 
characterizes his service time as a basic cadet and not any 
previous service that he had already been separated.  Lastly, 
each service has a waiver process for entry their service. 

A complete copy of the USAFA/A1A evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 18 Aug 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  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 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 office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  While the applicant argues that the application of 
Air Force policy with respect to his uncharacterized service and 
Reentry (RE) code make him the victim of an injustice because he 
is unable to re-join the Air National Guard (ANG), we are not 
convinced that he is the victim of an injustice.  In this 
respect, we note the applicant is eligible for enlistment, with 
a waiver, provided he is otherwise qualified.  Whether or not 
the applicant is successful is entirely dependent on the needs 
of the service and/or component.  Therefore, if the applicant is 
intent on re-affiliating with the ANG, his ability to do so is 
predicated on the availability of a vacancy for which he is 
qualified.  In our view, the fact he will need a waiver to be 
considered does not constitute an injustice.  Furthermore, we 
have been advised that the applicant’s DD Form 214 will be 
administratively corrected to reflect AFI 36-3208 as the 
Separation Authority in Block 25.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the requested relief.

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 issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-04639 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, USAFA/A1A, dated 28 Jul 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 14.
2