RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02695
		INDEX CODE: 100.02 

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code be changed to one that would enable him to reenlist.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not allowed to rehabilitate himself in the Air Force.  He blames himself and claims embarrassment and humility as factors for not arguing his case further at the time.  (Exhibit A)

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on  7 April 1981.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) with an effective date and date of rank of 7 April 1982.  Applicant’s records contain two Airman Performance Reports (APRs), the first of which was rated an overall seven (7) and the final APR an overall three (3).

On 21 July 1982, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for being late for duty.  On 4 October 1982, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to report to duty.  On    10 December 82, the applicant received an Article 15 for leaving a duty area without permission and for not reporting to his duty location on the next day.  The Article 15 punishment imposed a suspended reduction in grade to Airman (Amn) through 15 May 1983 and forfeiture of $100.00 per month for two months.  On         21 January 1983, the applicant’s commander vacated the suspended reduction in grade to Amn as a result of the applicant’s role in the destruction of government property exceeding $100.00 in value.  The applicant was duly demoted to Airman with a date of rank of 10 December 1982.

On 9 March 1983, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge due to discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities.  The specific reasons for the proposed discharge were the incidents cited above.  The commander stated that before recommending the discharge, the applicant had been enrolled in the drug rehabilitation program, and counseled verbally, as well as by written means, regarding his behavior.  He was also counseled by the first sergeant concerning other infractions (i.e. being late for work).  The commander did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge action, consulted with counsel, and waived his right to submit statements in his behalf.

The applicant received a general discharge on 1 April 1983 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities.  He had completed a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 25 days of active service and was serving in the grade of Airman (E2) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE code of 2B, “Separated with a General or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge.”

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial based on the applicant not submitting any new evidence nor identifying any errors or injustices that occurred during his discharge.  DPPRS stated that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the discharge authority acted within its discretionary boundaries.  (Exhibit C)

HQ AFPC/DPPAE verified that the RE code of 2B, “Separated with a general or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge” is correct.  (Exhibit D)

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 November 2002, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.  (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 error or injustice.  After careful review of the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s involuntary separation, the discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation and we find no evidence to indicate 

2
that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  Applicant’s RE Code of 2B accurately reflects his involuntary separation with a general discharge.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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 02-02695 in Executive Session on 30 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 14 Aug 02. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dtd 11 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dtd 12 Nov 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 15 Nov 02.

                                   

3