RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-03603
		INDEX CODE 100.06
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be upgraded so he can reenlist in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is not debating any error or injustice. His discharge was due to his use of his credit card and unauthorized use of his roommate’s telephone. He repaid each debt. He went to Jackson State University and majored in biology. He found work as a substance abuse counselor. His mistakes were due to immaturity. He is older and wiser now and he wants to finish his dream as a member of the US Armed Forces.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 24 Mar 94 and was assigned to Ellsworth AFB, SD.

On 8 Dec 94, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for the following: writing four insufficiently funded checks on or about 12 Nov 94, claiming on 1 Dec 94 when confronted that he had closed his checking account and the credit union had made an error, and writing an additional 13 insufficiently funded checks. The applicant acknowledged receipt but did not rebut.

On 13 Dec 94, he was counseled for missing, and not canceling, an appointment.

On 13 Feb 95, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for being absent from his place of duty without authority on 8 Feb 95. On 24 Feb 95, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and submitted a written presentation. On 27 Feb 95, his commander found him guilty and imposed the following punishment: 14 days of extra duty and a suspended reduction from airman first class to airmen until 26 Aug 95. The applicant did not appeal the punishment. The Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 13 Apr 95, the applicant was counseled for missing, and not canceling, a dental appointment on 21 Mar 95.

On 19 Jun 95, the applicant pled and was found guilty in a special court-martial of the following: failing to obey direct orders from his commander to restrict the use of his government credit card to official business between 2 Dec 94 and 8 Feb 95 for a total of $3,385.60; breaking into another airman’s dormitory room and, with intent to defraud, pretending to AT&T, Federal Transtel, Inc., and Sprint that he was authorized to charge $169.96 in long-distance calls on the airman’s account on 18 Feb 95; and failing to pay his government credit card balance in the amount of $3,711.19. He was reduced to airman basic, forfeited $250.00 in pay per month for six months, and confined for six months. 

On 2 Nov 95, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend discharge for a pattern of misconduct. The commander cited the misconduct discussed above. The applicant acknowledged receipt. On 3 Nov 95, the commander recommended the applicant for a general discharge for the cited misconduct, without probation and rehabilitation. After consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements.

The case was found legally sufficient and was approved by the discharge authority on 9 Nov 95.

The applicant was discharged with a general characterization of service in the grade of airman basic on 15 Nov 95 with 1 year, 7 months and 22 days of active service. His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code was “JKA,” Pattern of Misconduct, and his RE code was “2K” (Has been formally notified by the unit commander of initiation of involuntary separation).  

On 9 Jan 03, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP notified the applicant that they had administratively corrected his RE code from “2K” to “2B” (Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS provided their rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE advises that the applicant’s original RE code of “2K” has been administratively changed to “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 14 Feb 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 his RE code should be changed. Further, we do not believe the discharge, which drove the RE code, should be upgraded. The applicant’s original RE code of “2K” was administratively amended to “2B,” which correctly reflects he was involuntarily separated with a general discharge. The applicant displayed a pattern of misconduct during his brief military career. He submits no evidence leading us to believe the LOR, the Article 15, or the special court-martial conviction were improper. In cases of this nature, we are reluctant to disturb the judgments of command officers absent a strong showing of abuse of discretionary authority.  We have no such showing here.  Further, the applicant has not demonstrated that he was deprived of any right to which he was entitled or that the actions taken against him were not brought about by his own misconduct.  The applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice. Therefore, in view of the above and absent persuasive 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 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 15 May 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03603 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Dec 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 Dec 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.