RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-04021
		INDEX CODE:  110.00, 100.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow eligibility to enlist in the Air Force Reserves.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The punishment received for his actions was extreme.

Other than the requests for copies of his DD Form 214, no supporting documents were provided.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 3 Jul 91.

On 20 Nov 91, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge due to minor disciplinary infractions.  The reasons for this action follow:  (a) Failure to report for detail (latrine detail); (b) Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing room inspection; (c) Record of Counseling (ROC) for repeatedly falling asleep in class; (d) ROC for signing an unauthorized guest into a building; (e) LOR, with Unfavorable Information File (UIF), for having alcohol in his room; (f) Failure to have a flashlight at formation; (g) In violation of AFR 35-10 (needed a haircut); and, (h) Article 15 for wrongfully failing to remain on station in violation of a lawful general regulation, in addition to consuming alcohol while under the legal age.  The applicant consulted a lawyer, waived his right to demand trial by court-martial and accepted nonjudicial punishment.  After considering all matters presented to him, the commander found that the applicant did commit one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment consisting of a $250.00 forfeiture of pay for two (2) month and seven (7) days of extra duty.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 20 Nov 91, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and waived his right to consult with counsel and to submit written statements in his behalf.  On 20 Nov 91, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued an entry level separation.

On 21 Nov 91, the applicant received an uncharacterized entry level separation under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (entry level performance).  He had completed a total of 4 months and 19 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of separation.  He received an RE Code of 2C, which defined means "Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10 with an honorable discharge; or, entry level separation without characterization of service."
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that airmen are given entry level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  Based upon the documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied.  DPPAE states that the RE Code of 2C is correct.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant did not provide any evidence showing the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  His separation was due to a pattern of misconduct.  The RE code which was issued at the time of applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust.  While the applicant asserts he has matured since his separation, he has provided no evidence to substantiate this claim or attesting to a successful post-service adjustment.  We, therefore, conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 this application in Executive Session on 29 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-04021.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Dec 02.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jan 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Feb 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.