RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02003, Cse 2
		INDEX CODE:  100.06

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN	HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him possible entry into the Air Force Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Changing his RE code would aid him in exploring a career in the Air Force Reserves upon receiving his associate's degree.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge on 16 May 90.  He served 2 years and 5 months of active service.  He received an RE code of 2B, "Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

The applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) in Jul 00 to upgrade his discharge to honorable.  The AFBCMR in Dec 00 upgraded his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to an honorable discharge.  The applicant's RE code was changed to a 2C, "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied on the basis 
that regardless of the fact the AFBCMR upgraded his discharge, he was still involuntarily separated (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states the reasons he is ineligible for reenlistment is that he received two Article 15s, one was for driving his privately owned vehicle without proper insurance coverage on base.  The applicant resubmitted the letter from the insurance company stating he did have insurance on his vehicle.  He received the other Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  He states that he did, in fact, go to work the day in question but did not arrive until noon.  He feels the wording on the Article 15s should have been worded differently, thus possibly lessening the severity of his punishment (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 probable error or injustice.  After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that the reenlistment code he received was in error or unjust.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Although the applicant's discharge was upgraded the reenlistment code he received is appropriate.  The reenlistment code he received indicates that the member was either separated "Involuntarily with an honorable discharge; or an entry level separation without characterization of service."  The applicant was involuntarily separated due to misconduct.  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 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 October 23, 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair     
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Sep 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Sep 01.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant's Response, dated 2 Oct 01.