RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01934
		INDEX CODE:  110.00, 112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was seventeen (17) years old when he enlisted in the Air Force.  He states that he was trying to get away, not knowing what real responsibility or commitment was.  He was unable to understand the importance of a structured organization and unwilling to put forth the effort necessary to adapt.  Now over 20 years later, he regrets that he did not fulfill his commitment to the Air Force.    Since his discharge for the past 13 years he has been in the law enforcement career field.  He states that he desires to enlist in the Air National Guard

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 April 1981 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

On 1 December 1982, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for minor disciplinary infractions.  Specific reasons follows:

	On 1 February 1982, he received a Letter of Reprimand for having knowledge of a weapons safety violation which he failed to report in a timely manner.  He also handled and cleared a weapon (shotgun) without proper supervision which is also a weapons safety violation.

	On 18 February 1982, he received a Letter of Counseling for failure to report for duty with the required duty uniform as described in SPOI 125-5, failure to comply with the instructions of an NCO appointed over him, failure to wear a hat while outside, a violation of AFR 35-10, and failure to repair for a scheduled Reading Achievement Test on 17 February 1982 at 1000 hours.

	On 18 March 1982, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to report for guardmount at 1345 hours on 16 March 1982.  He did not show up for duty until approximately 1615 hours on 16 March 1982.

	On 20 July 1982, he was diagnosed as having a mixed personality disorder with narcissistic and immature features (DSM III 301.89).

	On 27 July 1982, he refused to acknowledge receipt of AF Form 590, Withdrawal/Reinstatement of Authority to Bear Firearms after his evaluation by Malcolm Grow Medical Center Department of Psychiatry, which diagnosed him as having a mixed personality with narcissistic and immature features.  Based on this evaluation and previous administrative actions taken against him, he was relieved of his weapon and security police duties.

	On 10 August 1982, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to report for duty at the prescribed time, 0800 hours on 9 August 1982, after a two-day leave he had taken.  He was seen at approximately 1107 hours on 9 August 1982, at his place of duty, bldg P-21.

	On 27 October 1982, he received an Article 15 because he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 18 October 1982.  Also, on 26 October 1982, he failed to go at the time prescribed, to wit; Mental Health Clinic, Andrews AFB, MD for a scheduled appointment.

	On 28 October 1982, I received a letter from SMSgt Board, his supervisor, while he was detailed to HQ USAF/HC regarding his duty performance.  The first two weeks he performed his duties in a very satisfactory manner.  From approximately 25 August 1982 until he was relieved of duty on 22 October 1982, he arrived for work on time no more than five days.  The rest of the time, he was consistently 20 minutes to two hours late for work each day despite repeated reminders of his duty hours.

	

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending this discharge he felt that the applicant was given every opportunity to progress and overcome his deficiencies.  He had been orally counseled on numerous occasions but he had not responded to the actions.  Therefore, he did not recommend further rehabilitation because of negative response to Letters of Reprimand and Counseling.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 23 December 1982, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 29 December 1982, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate recommended a direct immediate discharge with a general discharge certificate.  She indicated that the applicant’s repetitive misconduct evidenced a lack of respect for military authority and discipline and a disinterest in rehabilitation.  Most of the explanations he provided for his infractions were based on his own inattentiveness.

On 29 December 1982, the discharge authority approved applicant’s discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 3 January 1983, in the grade of airman first class, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions).  He completed 1 year, 8 months and 14 days of total active duty service.

A resume of the applicant's performance reports follows:

		PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			19 Apr 82			9
			30 Nov 82			5

On 8 October 2002, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP notified the applicant that his request for his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code change had been administratively corrected to a 2B (Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10, with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated that based upon the documentation in the file, they believe 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 injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied.  

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 October 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting partial relief.  On 8 October 2002, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP notified the applicant that his request for his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code change had been administratively corrected to a 2B (Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10, with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge).   The Board finds that based on clemency and the applicant’s desire to join the Air National Guard, his RE code should be changed to “3K.”  The Board believes he should be afforded the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the armed services.  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 the Air Force or any branch of the service.  Therefore, we recommend his RE code be changed to “4E” (Grade is E-1, E-2, or E-3 with Total Air Force Military Service (TAFMS) not exceeding 18 years and 1 month).

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting an upgrade of discharge.  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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board believes that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting this portion of the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code issued in conjunction with his general (under honorable conditions) discharge on 3 January 1983 was “4E.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01934 in Executive Session on 10 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 June 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 October 2002.

			Panel Chair

 
AFBCMR 02-01934

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      , be corrected to show that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code issued in conjunction with his general (under honorable conditions) discharge on 3 January 1983 was “4E.”

		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency