RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02914
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like his RE code changed to reenlist into the service.

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:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 April 1999 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 4 March 1997 the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for misconduct.  The specific reasons follow:

	  On 6 October 1999, he failed to show for duty on time.  For this conduct, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 6 October 1999.

	  On 10 December 1999, he failed to complete his mandatory study time.  For this conduct, he received an LOC, dated 10 December 1999.

	  On 20 May 2000, he failed to show for duty on time.  He was verbally counseled on 22 May 2000.  Then again on 24 May 2000, he failed to show for duty on time.  For this conduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 5 June 2000.

	  On 31 May and 1 June 2000, he failed to complete his mandatory study time.  This conduct was evidenced by a Memorandum For Record (MFR), dated 2 June 2000, which was entered in his Personnel Information Folder (PIF).

	  On 8 and 9 June 2000, he failed to show for mandatory study.  This conduct was evidenced by an MFR, dated 12 June 2000, which was entered in his PIF.

	  On 27 June 2000, he was arrested and held in civilian confinement for assaulting his roommate and tampering with a witness.  For this conduct, he received an LOR, dated 7 July 2000.

	  On 1, 5, and 10 July 2000, he failed to show for duty on time.  For this conduct he received an LOR, dated 11 July 2000.

	  On 13 July 2000, he failed to show for duty on time.  At 1000 hours, he arrived at the Orderly Room with a 24 hours quarters slip from the hospital.  He did not notify his supervisor that he was sick, nor did he notify his supervisor that he was going to the hospital.  This conduct was evidenced by an MFR, dated 13 July 2000, which was entered in his PIF.

	  On 14 July 2000, he failed to show for duty on time.  His duty day began at 0715 and he arrived at 0718, missing the beginning of the morning briefing.  This conduct is evidenced by a MFR, dated 14 July 2000, which was entered in his PIF.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending this discharge, he had given the applicant three LORs, two LOCs, and four MFRs as methods of rehabilitation.  He further indicated that he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation (P&R) according to chapter 7 of AFI 36-3208.  Probation and rehabilitation is reserved for those airmen who demonstrate a potential to serve satisfactorily, who have the capacity to be rehabilitated for continued military service, for completion of the current enlistment, or whose retention on active duty in a probationary status is consistent with the maintenance of good order and discipline in the Air Force.  The respondent did not meet any of the above criteria, and therefore, was not an appropriate candidate for P&R.

The commander advised the 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 waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

The Deputy, Staff Judge Advocate, recommended that the applicant be administratively separated from the Air Force and furnished with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, without an offer of P&R.

On 6 September 2000, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 7 September 2000, in the grade of airman first class with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208.  He served a total of 1 year, 4 months and 30 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant has a record of disciplinary problems from 6 October 1999 to 14 July 2000.  The RE code of 2B, “Involuntarily separated with a general (under honorable conditions) or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge” is correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and indicated that he recognizes his past mistakes in the military.  He states that he was immature; however, he has matured since his discharge.  He has a family and wants his children to follow in his footsteps.  He would like to make a difference in their future.  He attends church, volunteers at a home for children, and is a volunteer at his son’s school.  He desires to reenlist in the Air Force or Army as soon as possible to make a difference in his family and community.  

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 that would warrant a change to his RE code.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives.  Applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe otherwise.  Therefore, we agree with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rational as the basis for our conclusion that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, 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 BC-2002-02914 in Executive Session on 3 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 August 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 November 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 February 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 February 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 February 2003,
		       w/atchs.