RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02991
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His actions for why he was discharged did not require such a severe code.  He received an Article 15, nonjudicial punishment, for having an unaccompanied female companion stay with him in his dormitory for more than 72 hours.

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 27 September 1995 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 Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The specific reasons follow:

	  On 3 May 1996, he failed to appear to a scheduled dental appointment.  For this offense, he received an LOC, dated 9 May 1996.

	  On 14 June 1996, he wore a uniform that was not in compliance with AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel.  He was counseled several times to improve the appearance of his uniform.  He was also advised not to wear an unserviceable blue shirt again, but he did.  For these offenses, he received an LOC, dated 14 June 1996.

	  On 18 October 1996, he arrived 15 minutes late for duty.  On 19 October 1996, he reported 10 minutes late, missing the opportunity to arm for duty until guardmount was completed.  On 25 October 1996, he arrived 13 minutes later than instructed.  For these offenses, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 26 October 1996.

	  A notification letter, dated 2 November 1996, was received by the commander’s office indicating that he was 60 days past due on his Deferred Payment Plan (DPP) and Uniform Clothing Deferred Payment Plan (UCDPP) accounts.  He dishonorably failed to pay his just debts.  For this offense, he received an LOR, dated 8 November 1996.

	  On 5 November 1996, he wore a uniform that was not in compliance with AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel.  On 5 November 1996, he also failed his Stan-Eval for the second time and failed to open his assigned gate on time.  Opening the gate late is a dereliction of duty.  For these offenses, he received an LOR, dated 7 November 1996.

	  On 15 November 1996, he was late for his scheduled pre-deployment pack and check.  He was scheduled to be present at 0800; however, he arrived 30 minutes tardy after he had been summoned by other personnel.  For this offense, he received an LOR, dated 15 November 1996.

    Between on or about 1 January 1997 and 17 January 1997, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from having guests in his dormitory room for more than 72 hours, as it was his duty to do.  Between on or about 1 December 1996 and 16 January 1997, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from having unauthorized pets in his dormitory room, as it was his duty to do.  Between on or about 1 December 1996 and 16 January 1997 without proper authority, he willfully damaged military property of the United States, the amount of said damage being in the sum of about $92.25.  After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and submitted a written presentation.  He was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment:  He received nonjudicial punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman basic, suspended forfeitures of $50 pay per month for 2 months, and a reprimand.  Punishment was imposed 20 February 1997.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

	  On or about 12 February 1997, he failed to maintain his assigned quarters in accordance with standards as outlined in AFI 32-6005 and the Wing Dormitory Guide.  Specifically, he willfully kept a pet in his dormitory room after he had been previously directed to remove them from his government quarters.  For this offense, he received an LOR, dated 13 February 1997.

	  On 26 February 1997, he failed to report for duty at the prescribed time of 0730.  He reported in at 0748 and also failed to inform the Law Enforcement Superintendent of his arrival.  For this offense, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 26 February 1997.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending this discharge, the applicant was given several opportunities to improve his conduct.  Unfortunately, he had not responded to these rehabilitative efforts.  The commander further indicated that he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation (P&R) according to AFI 36-3208, Chapter 7.  The applicant was given the opportunity to correct his actions.  However, even after being served with the intent to impose Article 15 proceedings, he again kept a pet in his room in violation of directives.  His continued service in the Air Force would have had an adverse impact on good order and discipline within the squadron.  Accordingly, he believed that P & R was inappropriate, and that the applicant should be removed from the service as quickly as possible.

On 7 March 1997, the applicant received an AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, for the period 8 March 1996 through 4 March 1997.  The type of report received was a Letter of Evaluation (LOE).

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.

On 26 March 1997, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with a general discharge, without suspension of the discharge’s execution for probation and rehabilitation.

On 27 March 1997, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 2 April 1997, in the grade of airman basic with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208.  He served a total of 1 year, 6 months, and 7 days 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 and 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.  A review of the applicant’s records revealed that the commander notified applicant on 4 March 1997 that he was being discharged from the Air Force for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions (misconduct).  The applicant’s RE code is correct.  He received the proper RE code upon his separation in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 7 February 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 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. 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.

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 02-02991 in Executive Session on 20 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 September 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 November 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 January 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 February 2003.