RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03398
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		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 be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to enlist into the Air Force Reserves or Air Guard.  He indicates that he is currently employed in the civilian sector, in the Army National Guard, married, and has raised two sons.  He would like to complete his career with the Air Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an E-mail from his Squadron Leader (Washington Air National Guard), dated 10 April 2002 and a letter from his supervisor, dated 29 October 2001.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the time period in question the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 September 1983 in the grade of senior airman.

On 1 August 1986 and 2 September 1986 the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The specific reasons follow:

	  He failed to meet a scheduled dental appointment on 29 March 1985, at 1115 hours, which resulted in an LOR, dated 15 April 1985.

	  His delinquency in payment to the Service Federal Credit Union in the amount of $349.28, which resulted in a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 6 January 1986.

	  On or about 3 May 1986, on Highway 
B-50 in front of #3 Hauptstr he operated a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car, while drunk which resulted in an Article 15 on 20 May 1986 with a suspended reduction, forfeiture, and correctional custody.

	  His marginal performance while assigned to correctional custody from 20 May 1986 through 19 June 1986.

	  On 1 September 1985 to on or about 3 May 1986, he violated a lawful general regulation, to wit:  Air Force Regulation 125-14, USAFE Supplement 1, paragraph 2-1c, dated 28 February 1983, by wrongfully operating a USAREUR registered vehicle without valid insurance, which resulted in an Article 15, on 21 July 1986 with a reduction to the grade of airman.  However the execution of the punishment which provided for reduction from airman first class to airman was suspended until 29 December 1986.  His new date of rank to airman first class was 2 July 1986.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending this discharge, he had counseled the applicant, initiated 2 Article 15 actions, enrolled him into the Alcohol & Drug Rehabilitation Program, and placed him in correctional custody for 30 days.  He further indicated that he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation according to Chapter 7 because further rehabilitation would not turn the applicant into a productive member of the Air Force.  He had shown that he would not be able to abide by the rules and regulations.  The only option open was separation.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel, to present his case before an administrative discharge board, and submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, applicant offered a conditional waiver of his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing contingent upon receiving no less than a general discharge.

On 26 September 1986, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate recommended that the applicant’s conditional waiver be accepted and he be separated with a general discharge without suspension for probation and rehabilitation.

On 30 September 1986, the discharge authority accepted the conditional waiver and approved the applicant’s discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 20 October 1986, in the grade of airman first class with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions of AFR 39-10.  The applicant served 6 years, 2 months and 23 days of total active federal 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 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.  Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied.  He has not filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant received an RE code of 2B, “separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  This code is correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 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 an error or an injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s characterization of service and RE code.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the commander exceeded his authority or that the reason for the discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  The Board believes that 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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-2002-03398 in Executive Session on 17 April 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 October 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 November 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 February 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 February 2003.