RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03675
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is considering reenlisting and/or perusing a GS employment slot.

Applicant did not provide any documents in support of his appeal.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 July 1986.  The applicant received five Airman Performance Reports (APRs), in which the overall evaluations were 8,9,9,9, and 9.

On 18 September 1987, the commander notified the applicant he was being recommended for discharge because of a pattern of misconduct ‑‑ discreditable involvement with military and civil authorities.  The misconduct covered the period from 9 June 1986 to 10 June 1987.  Applicant was convicted in Magistrate Court in Ipswich UK, on 22 June 1986 for numerous motor vehicle violations and failing to have liability insurance.  He was fined and his driving privileges were suspended for a year.  On 27 May 1987 and 29 June 1987, applicant tested positive for marijuana use.  The latter resulted in an Article 15 and punishment included reduction to senior airman, forfeiture of $300 and 45 days extra duty.  Records indicate he had been counseled many times for failure to pay bills on time, and he wrote numerous checks that were returned for insufficient funds.  Applicant consulted legal counsel but did not submit statements.  In view of the continued misconduct and failure to respond to various corrective efforts, the commander indicated probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were not recommended.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.  The discharge authority ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman first class, was discharged from the Air Force on 23 October 1987, under the provisions of AFI 39-10 (pattern of discreditable involvement with military or civil authorities) and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He was assigned a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B “Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge.”  He had served 1 year and 3 months on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that 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.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states that RE code of 2B is correct.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached 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 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 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.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe the applicant’s discharge was erroneous or unjust.  The reasons discharge proceedings were initiated against the applicant are well documented in the record.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing the information in his discharge case file is erroneous, that his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  In the absence of such evidence, we have no basis on which to favorably consider 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 this application in Executive Session on 19 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Dec 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 17 Dec 02.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Jan 03.