RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-04057
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow eligibility to reenter active duty or the Reserves.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge may have been too severe and unjust of a punishment for a few minor infractions.  He has matured since his discharge.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 1 April 1982 for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 May 1983.  He was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2), with a date of rank (DOR) of 6 October 1983, pursuant to an Article 15. 

On 16 February 1984, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for misconduct.  The reasons for this action follow:

	a.  Record of Counseling (ROC), dated 11 August 1983, on or about 23 July 1983, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities for drinking in public and littering.  For this offense, he had to perform community service.

	b.  On 29 September 1983, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for wrongfully disposing of a military dependent identification card, issued to him when he was a military dependent, by giving it to a minor, in violation of Article 108, UCMJ.  The applicant consulted a lawyer, waived his right to demand trial by court-martial and accepted nonjudicial punishment.  On 6 October 1983, after considering all matters presented to him, the commander found that the applicant did commit one or more of the offenses alleged.  The commander imposed punishment of 30 days of correctional custody and a suspended reduction to the grade of airman (E-2) until 6 April 1984.  The applicant submitted documentation indicating that he appealed the nonjudicial punishment on 13 October 1983.  His request was denied.

	c.  On 16 October 1983, the applicant was cited for driving with an expired state inspection sticker.  For this he received a verbal counseling.

	d.  On 2 February 1984, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to vacate his suspended nonjudicial punishment of 29 September 1983.  The misconduct applicant had allegedly committed was for being drunk and disorderly in station, on or about 21 January 1984, and for willfully damaging a door and wall, which was the property of the U.S. Government, in violation of Articles 108 and 134, UCMJ.  The applicant consulted a lawyer and provided a written presentation.  On 14 February 1984, after considering all matters presented to him, the commander vacated the applicant’s previously suspended nonjudicial punishment and he was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2), with a new date of rank of 6 October 1983.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.  On 23 February 1984, Area Defense Counsel (ADC) indicated the applicant had been counseled and advised of his rights and privileges.  On 23 February 1984 the applicant submitted a request for retention or, if discharged, an honorable characterization.  The Staff Judge Advocate recommended a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  On 13 March 1984, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge.

The applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) on 19 March 1984.  He had completed a total of 1 year, 11 months and 19 days and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code of 2B, which defined means "Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge."

On 25 January 1985, the applicant's request for a change of RE code was denied by the Air Force Personnel Board, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC).

On 3 March 1985, the applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) to have his RE code of 2B changed.  His application was denied by the Board on 18 June 1985.  A copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP), Docket Number 85-02223, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  Based upon the documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS states that 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.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied.  DPPAE states that the applicant’s RE code of 2B is correct.   The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 25 April 2003 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

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 persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his rights were violated, his commanders abused their discretionary authority, or that his service warranted a better characterization than the one he received.  Additionally, we note that the applicant provided no documents to substantiate that he has maintained the standards of good citizenship in the community since his discharge; therefore, we are not inclined to exercise clemency in the form of an upgrade to his discharge.  With regard to applicant’s RE code, inasmuch as the RE code issued at the time of his discharge accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation, we do not find this code to be in error or unjust.  In view of the above and 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 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 Docket Number BC-2002-04057 in Executive Session on 14 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, Docket Number 85-02223.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Mar 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 Apr 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.