RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03479
		INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed and any negative remarks be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Because of back pains he was not allowed to train in the security field and was assigned to the administrative field.  While awaiting training he learned what his schooling consisted of and felt that he had been deceived by personnel at Lackland AFB.  He voiced his dissatisfaction and was put in an adjustment class for two weeks.  While in an awaiting status he received permission from his lieutenant to go to New Orleans for the weekend.  While there he was in a car with a few friends after having a few drinks.  They were throwing beer bottles out of the car window into a trash can and a bottle went through a hotel window.  He and a female that was sitting beside him argued over which one of them threw the bottle that went through the window.  When the police arrived they took her word that he threw the bottle and arrested him.  He spent three days in jail, even though he said that he was willing to pay for the window.  His lieutenant came and got him on the fourth day.  After his return to the base, he was in the BX purchasing CDs from a clearance rack.  He noticed that some of the CDs had a 50% off price tag on them and others did not.  He did not want to go through the hassle at the registers over the price so he put 50% off tags on the CDs that weren't marked.  He was apprehended by store security and accused of stealing.  At this point he was utterly disgusted with the Air Force.  His lieutenant told him that if he wanted out of the Air Force, this would be his best opportunity.  He wrote a letter to the base exchange and the hotel and apologized.  The hotel did not press charges and he did not have to go to court.  He never caused trouble with anyone and drank only once.  He was complemented on various occasions on his job performance.  He believes he was dealt a bad hand and wants to prove that he is a responsible and worthy citizen.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a criminal background check, character references, and his DD Form 214.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Mar 99.  On 23 Aug 99, applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.22.2, Entry Level Performance and Conduct.  The specific reason for this action was on 29 Jul 99, he received nonjudicial punishment for stealing property of the Army Air Force Exchange Services; on 10 Jul 99, he was arrested by the New Orleans Police Department for criminal damage to property; and on 3 Aug 99, he received a Letter of Counseling for losing his military bearing.  He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  He waived his right to consult counsel and elected not to submit statements on his own behalf.  On 23 Aug 99, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that he be discharged with an uncharacterized entry-level separation.  On 26 Aug 99, he was discharged and issued RE code 2C "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service".

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE states that the applicant's RE code "2C" is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 Aug 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 careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code.  In our opinion, given the number of the offenses he committed against the good order and discipline of the service in the short period of time in which he served, the RE code that he was assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives.  In addition, the reason for his separation appears to be accurate and in accordance with the applicable directives.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we are not compelled to recommend favorable consideration of his request.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-03479 in Executive Session on 1 Oct 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 03.