RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03812
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not understand why he was given a code that would not allow him to reenter the armed forces.  He is currently trying to enlist in the Army.

In support of the applicant’s appeal he provided a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 June 2000 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 16 May 2001, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions.  The specific reasons follows:

	On or about 8 January 2001, he used a government computer to access the internet.  The internet site he visited was not for official business or authorized activities.  In addition, he was also instructed to complete his Unit Review Exercise for volume 3 of his Career Development Course (CDC), which he failed to complete.  On or about 9 January 2001, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.  He was thirty (30) minutes late for work and failed to inform anyone that he was running late.  For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) dated 10 January 2001.

	On or about 22 January 2001, he was wearing a tongue stud while in uniform.  He received verbal counseling on previous occasions prior to this incident that this type of misconduct was in violation of AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel.  For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 24 January 2001.

	On or about 2 February 2001, he appeared for duty in uniform with unshaven facial hair.  He was in violation of AFI 36-2903.  For this misconduct, he received an LOC dated 2 February 2001.

	On or about 5 February 2001, he was wearing a tongue stud while on a military installation.  This misconduct was in violation of AFI 36-2903.  He received verbal counseling on previous occasions and a written reprimand prior to this incident for similar misconduct.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 9 February 2001.

	On or about 12 February 2001, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.  He was seventy (70) minutes late for work and failed to inform anyone that he was running late, as previously counseled.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 14 February 2001.

	On or about 26 February 2001, he was notified by Security Forces that his base driving privileges were revoked for a period of two (2) years.  This was as the result of his state driver’s license being suspended.  On or about 1 March 2001, he failed to obey that lawful order in that he drove on base while his base driving privileges were revoked.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 16 March 2001.  In addition, this LOR established his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

The commander indicated in his recommendation that he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation because the applicant had been given several opportunities to comply with standards but failed to conform and adhere to military guidelines.

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.

On 16 March 2001, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 4 May 2001, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following reason: On divers occasions from on or about 18 April 2001 to on or about 30 April 2001, he made a fraudulent claim against the United States, for food valued at $28.65, which he was not eligible to receive.  On or about 27 February 2001, he failed to obey a lawful order in that he drove on base when his driving privileges were revoked.

On 10 May 2001, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, did not request a personal appearance and did submit a written presentation.

He was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: a reduction to the rank of airman basic and 14 days extra duty.  

Applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 24 May 2001, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) without probation and rehabilitation.

On 24 May 2001, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 30 May 2001, in the grade of airman with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  He served a total of 11 months and 2 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 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.  He has filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE indicates that the basis for the applicant’s separation action was a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant’s RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization or service” is correct.

EXAMINER’S NOTE: AFPC/DPPAE’s advisory is in error.  The applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a RE code of 2B vice an honorable discharge with a RE code of 2C.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 3 January 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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s RE code.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we note that in the 11 months and 2 days that the applicant was on active duty, he received 2 LOCs, 4 LORs, and an Article 15.  Therefore, 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.  The applicant has not established that he has been the victim of either an error or injustice.  The RE code he received reflected the type of discharge he received.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 an 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 02-03812 in Executive Session on 20 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 November 2002, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 December 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 December 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 January 2003.