RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00823
		INDEX CODE:  106.00/110.00
		COUNSEL:  
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his reenlistment (RE) code be changed from “2B” to “1M.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was unjustly characterized and his reenlistment code was issued in error due to fallacies in interpreting Air Force Regulations.  

His post-service activities as a family man, Correctional Officer, Community Service volunteer, and recipient of a Life Saving Award constitutes clemency relief. 

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a statement from his counsel and documentation associated with his discharge.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 September 1985, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force for a period of 4 years. On 15 August 1989, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years.  On 17 May 1993, he reenlisted for a period of 2 years.  During these periods of service, he was progressively promoted to senior airman (E-4).  His medals include the Good Conduct Medal w/1 OLC, Humanitarian Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal.

On 27 September 1991, the commander issued the applicant a letter of reprimand for failure to pay his electrical service and for two returned checks due to insufficient funds.  

On or about 6 January 1992, it was reported to the Section Commander that the applicant had two checks returned to Charleston AFB Exchange due to insufficient funds.   In addition, on 9 March 1992, he failed to pay his telephone bill.  For these delinquencies, he was given a letter of reprimand.

On 28 July 1993, the applicant was notified that the commander was recommending him for a general discharge.  The reason for the discharge was an Article 15 issued to him for stealing a 10-speed bike valued at over $100.00.  For this offense, on 7 July 1993, he was reduced to the grade of airman first class and received 14 days of extra duty.  On 1 July 1993, he submitted a waiver of his right to a board hearing contingent upon his receipt of no less than a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  Subsequently, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct – Other Serious Offenses) and received an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge.  He served 7 years, 11 months and 3 days of total active military service.  

On 9 March 1998, the Air Force Discharge Review Board considered the applicant’s request for discharge upgrade and change in reenlistment eligibility and concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a change of his discharge and reenlistment code and denied his request (Exhibit C).

On 28 June 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation advised they were unable to locate any arrest records on the applicant.  This information is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations and Procedures Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed this application and recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors in the discharge processing.  DPPRS states that based on the documentation in file, the discharge was consistent with the requirements of the discharge regulation (See Exhibit E).

The Special Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed the application and states that the Reenlistment Eligibility Code of “2B separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions discharge” is correct (See Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel reviewed the advisory opinions and reasserted his original contentions and reiterates that the discharge process was prejudicial and should have been impartial. Counsel states that the applicant should be given a second chance to serve his nation.  Counsel’s response is at Exhibit H. 

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Other than the assertions of the applicant and counsel, documentary evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that the applicant’s discharge was contrary to the provisions of the discharge directive under which it was effected, that his commanders abused their discretionary authority, or that the information contained in the discharge case file was factually incorrect.  We noted the documentation the applicant provided regarding his conduct since his 1993 discharge for misconduct.  The evidence indicates that he has been a productive member of his community and has conducted his affairs in a responsible manner.  While we commend the applicant’s success in this regard, we do not find that these actions have been in evidence for a sufficiently lengthy period to warrant exercising clemency.  Accordingly, we find no basis to act favorably on his request for an upgrade of his discharge at this time.  Should the applicant continue in this responsible manner and provide evidence of a lengthy and established pattern of good citizenship, he may, of course, submit a request for clemency at a later time.  Additionally, we are not inclined to recommend that the applicant’s reenlistment code be changed from “2B to “1M” since the 2B is appropriate based on the reason for his separation and service characterization of his service.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 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 issues 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 probable 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 July 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 March 2001 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 9 March 1998.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, w/FBI response, dated 28 June 2001.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 April 2001.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 23 April 2001.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May 2001.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 12 June 2001.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair