RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01991
		INDEX CODE 100.06
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reasons for his separation be changed and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded to allow his entry into the United States Army.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant states that he is currently serving in the Georgia Army National Guard (NG) and desires to participate full-time in the Regular Army.

Since he entered the National Guard, he has obtained the rank of private first class (E-3) and a Military Occupational Series (MOS) of 19-D (Bradley Scout).  However, his RE code and narrative reason for separation are preventing him from entering the Regular Army.  The main reason for his discharge was his failure to qualify in his military specialty (i.e., munitions).  An RE code of “2B” is inappropriate because he did not receive a dishonorable discharge.  In addition, he was told that six months after his discharge, he would be able to join any of the other branches of the armed forces - just not the Air Force.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 November 1994, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years at the age of 18.

On 25 July 1995, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for discharge for unsatisfactory duty performance and minor disciplinary infractions.  Specifically, the commander cited the following:

	a.	On or about 15 June 1995, the applicant failed to report to his appointed place of duty and received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

	b.	On or about 10 June 1995, the applicant violated a lawful general regulation by wearing civilian clothing while in phase I and received an LOR.

	c.	On or about 26 May 1995, the applicant failed to obey the instructions of his instructor and received an LOR.

	d.	On or about 30 April 1995 and 6 May 1995, the applicant failed to report to his appointed placed of duty and received a Record of Individual Counseling.

On 1 August 1995, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct) with his service characterized as under honorable conditions (general).  He completed eight months and two days of active service, with five months and six days of prior inactive service.  He was issued an RE code of “2B.”

On 4 November 1996, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and the reason for his discharge be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Assistant Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC), Separation Procedures Section, AFPC/DPPRS, states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Assistant Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, states that applicant’s RE code of “2B” (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge” is correct.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he was not considered for discharge until he failed his Block X exam.  As to the minor disciplinary infractions, he provides an explanation for each.  He notes that it was his first time away from home and he had never been in the military before.  As such, he was afraid of making someone angry and possibly getting a dishonorable discharge.  When he would get “written-up” he would just sign it and tell them no comment so he would not get worse punishment.  He is now 25 years old and is mature, dependable, and a hard worker.  His First Sergeant and Commander support his request.  In addition, an Army recruiter has advised him that if he can get his RE code changed, he would be able to enter the regular Army with no problem.

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s RE code to “3K.” In this respect, we note that since his discharge from the Air Force, the applicant has entered the National Guard and appears to have overcome the behavorial traits which led to the contested discharge.  However, his assigned RE code of “2B” is preventing him from entering the United States Army.  In view of this, and in order to provide the applicant the opportunity to apply for entry into the Army, we believe his RE code should be changed in the interest of equity and justice.  Whether or not he is successful will depend on the needs of the service and our recommendation in no way guarantees that he will be allowed to return to any branch of the service.  Therefore, we recommend his RE code be changed to “3K.”

4.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant changing the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of his request; however, since he failed to make satisfactory progess in a required training program, we are not persuaded that the narrative reason for his discharge is in error or unjust.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of his request to change the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 1 August 1995, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 16 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Aug 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Aug 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 Aug 01.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Sep 01.

                                   

AFBCMR 01-01991

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 1 August 1995, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”