RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00241
		INDEX CODE 100.06
		COUNSEL:  American Legion

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B to 3A so that he may pursue a career in the U. S. Army.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is submitting this application for a correction to his RE code from 2B to a 3A (waiverable) so that his application for active duty with the U.S. Army can proceed.  Simply put, this correction would allow another service component the opportunity to review his record and qualifications to determine eligibility for service.  Because of this, he would like to request a hearing before the board in Washington, D.C. as soon as possible, where his counsel has agreed to represent him.  He intends to offer supporting evidence in the form of civilian transcripts as honor student from both Wright State University and Sinclair Community College, evidence of involvement in a number of community activities including Habitat for Humanity, American Red Cross, and American Cancer Society, and an affidavit from his Air Force supervisor at the time of his discharge testifying to the circumstances that led to his discharge.

In support of his appeal, he submitted a personal letter.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 11 Jan 90. 

On 27 May 95, the applicant was alleged to have engaged in sexual conduct with a female and purposely compelled the victim to submit by force or threat of force. On 26 September 1995, the applicant pleaded guilty to Gross Sexual Imposition in the county court, Summit County, Ohio.  He received a suspended 18 months sentence in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and placed on three years probation.

On 13 Jun 96 his commander notified him that he was being discharged for misconduct-civilian conviction.  On 13 Sep 96 he was discharged with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions in the grade of senior airman. He served 6 years, 11 months and 16 days of active service.  He received an RE of "2B." 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He has not filed a timely request.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant separated on 13 Sep 96, after serving 6 years, 11 months and 16 days active service.  The RE code of 2B, "Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions discharge" is correct. 

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 21 June 2002, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 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 carefully reviewed the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and particularly noted the post-service accomplishments that he mentioned.  In view of the circumstances surrounding his discharge from Air Force, we are not persuaded that he has been the victim of either an error or injustice.  At the time a member is separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation.  The assigned code reflects the Air Force's position regarding whether or not, or under what circumstances, the individual should be allowed to reenlist.  The evidence of records supports the stated reasons for the applicant's ineligibility to reenlist and we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the assigned RE code is in error or unjust.  The AFBCMR support staff requested additional documentation pertaining to his post-service accomplishments; however, he failed to provide such evidence.  In the absence of such evidence we find no basis for an upgrade of the RE code on the basis of clemency.  The action taken by his commander appears to have been within his discretionary authority and applicant was afforded due process.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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 issue 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 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 Docket Number 02-00241 in Executive Session on 20 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Mar 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE. dated 11 Jun 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.