RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02291
		INDEX CODE:  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 given a general discharge so that his commander could recoup a bonus from him.  He failed a Career Development Course (CDC) test and was sent for a command directed mental health evaluation and was told he had an adjustment disorder.  He was opposed to the involuntary discharge, was discharged and was told it was voluntary.

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

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 April 2000 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 6 years.

On 17 August 2001, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for conditions that interfere with military service, more specifically, an Adjustment Disorder with mixed emotional features, Mixed Receptive - Expressive Language disorder, Reading Disorder, and for misconduct, more specifically, Minor Disciplinary Infractions.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that on or about 13 June 2001, the applicant intentionally failed his Career Development Course test with the purpose to get out of the Air Force.  He had expressed a strong desire to leave military service at any cost and had expressed suicidal intentions to his supervisor.  The applicant received a Command Directed Mental Health Evaluation, which resulted in a diagnosis of an Axis I, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features, Occupational Problems.  He further indicated that he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.  Retention in a probationary status would be inconsistent with the maintenance of good order and discipline and would have an adverse impact on morale within the squadron.  In addition, he recommended initiating recoupment action on the unserved portion of the applicant’s enlistment bonus.

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.

After consulting with counsel, applicant requested retention in the Air Force and indicated that he would submit a written presentation in support of his request for retention.

On 19 September 2001, the discharge authority approved applicant’s discharge.

On 21 September 2001, the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  He completed 1 year, 5 months and 2 days of total active duty service.

On 9 May 2002, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge to an honorable, change of the narrative reason for discharge, and upgrade of his reenlistment code to enable him to reenlist.  They concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  They further concluded that no legal or equitable basis existed for upgrade of discharge, change of narrative reason or RE code.

The applicant received an RE code of 2K (Has been formally notified by the unit commander of initiation of involuntary separation action).

Per HQ AFPC/DPPAES an error with the applicant’s RE code was identified when he submitted a request for correction of military records.  On 15 October 2002, the applicant was notified that his RE code was corrected to reflect 2B (Separated 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 discretion of the discharge authority.  The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied an upgrade on 9 May 2002.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE indicated that the RE code of 2K, “Has been formally notified by the unit commander of initiation of involuntary separation action” is incorrect.  It should be 2B “Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.”

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and indicated that he intentionally failed his end of course exam to be cross-trained, not to get out of the Air Force. He did not want to be a jet mechanic because he was not good at being a mechanic.  He states that he is not looking for an honorable discharge to be handed to him, he wants the opportunity to reenlist and get the honorable discharge on his own.  

Applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
 
1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  The Board believes that the discharge apparently complied with the governing regulation in effect at that time; 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.  In view of the above finding, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02291 in Executive Session on 10 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 8 October 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 August 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 October 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 November 2002.