RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-02890
		INDEX CODE 106.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable (UOTHC) discharge) be changed to one that allows enlistment.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The misconduct was more like youthful exuberance. He realizes his mistakes and takes matters more seriously now. He wants to enlist and serve his country. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 Jul 97 and was assigned to Keesler AFB, MS. 

On 19 Mar 98, he was notified of his commander’s intention to recommend discharge for minor disciplinary infractions with a general characterization.  The notification stated that between 30 Oct 97 and 3 Mar 98 the applicant was either counseled or reprimanded for the following reasons:  Sleeping in class twice, driving 10 miles over the speed zone, leaving his dorm window unlocked, leaving his wall locker unsecured, playing games with students in supervised study, not shaving in a couple of days, lacking military bearing, not wearing his belt with his battle dress uniform, driving a private vehicle to school after lunch, failing his flight line block test, and underage consumption of alcoholic beverage. 

On 26 Mar 98, his commander recommended a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions. Probation and rehabilitation was not recommended based on the applicant’s failure to stay out of trouble.  The applicant indicated on 26 Mar 98 that he waived his right to submit statements; however, on that same day he submitted a statement.  On 31 Mar 98, the case was found legally sufficient based on his many disciplinary infractions despite opportunities to correct himself after each violation.

On 2 Apr 98, the discharge authority directed the applicant’s separation.  The applicant was discharged on 2 Apr 98 for misconduct with a general characterization.  He was issued an RE code of “2B.”  He served 8 months and 10 days of active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the proceedings.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE asserts the applicant’s RE code of “2C” [sic] (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge or entry level separation without characterization of service) is correct. [Examiner’s Note:  The advisory is incorrect; the applicant received an RE code of “2B.”]

A complete copy of the 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 10 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his RE code should be upgraded. His RE code was driven by his discharge.  His discharge was the result of 12 documented infractions in less than 5 months. The applicant has provided no evidence demonstrating the discharge was unjust, excessive or brought about by anything other than his own repeated misconduct in a very short period of time. We also note he has submitted no post-service information, such as educational accomplishments, employment history, contributions to his community, and character references from people who can vouch for his honesty and integrity. Should the applicant provide information reflecting that he has been a productive member of his community since his discharge, we would be willing to review his case for possible reconsideration on the basis of clemency. Unless or until he does so, however, we conclude that he has not shown he was the victim of either an error or injustice and find no compelling basis on which to recommend granting the relief sought.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 6 Mar 03 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

					Panel Chair
					Member
					Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02890 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Sep 02.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Oct 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Dec 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 03.