RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00674
		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 or Army Reserves.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has matured since his prior enlistment.  He has been a very upstanding citizen and desires to be able to serve his country in these times of turmoil.

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 13 June 1985 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman (E-2), with an effective date and date of rank of 13 December 1985.

On 8 December 1986, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge due to minor disciplinary infractions.  The reasons for this action follow:

	(a)  On 2 February 1986, arrested on base for disorderly conduct for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 18 February 1986.

	(b)  On 10 August 1986, received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to call his duty section as directed.

	(c)  On 10 August 1986, received an LOC for a delinquent car rental bill.

	(d)  On 4 August 1986, received an LOC for leaving his toolbox and all CTK items unsecured.

	(e)  On 17 March 1986, received an LOC for failure to wear the proper uniform at a military formation and for failure to report to work afterwards.

	(f)  On 29 August 1986, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  Applicant elected nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.  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.  The commander imposed punishment of a suspended reduction to the grade of airman basic until 9 March 1987.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 8 December 1986, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification letter.  On 9 December 1986, he was interviewed and counseled concerning his rights by the Area Defense Counsel.  The applicant declined to submit any written statements in his behalf.  The Staff Judge Advocate indicated that the applicant’s service did not appear to warrant an honorable discharge.  On 22 December 1986, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge.

The applicant received a general discharge on 12 January 1987 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (misconduct - pattern of minor disciplinary infractions).  He had completed a total of 1 year, and 7 months and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code of 2C, which defined means “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service."

On 18 December 1987, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) approved applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable; however, his request for a change of RE code was denied.  A copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states that, based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Since the applicant’s discharge was upgraded by the AFDRB and he did not identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, DPPRS defers to HQ AFPC/DPPAES for any change in his RE code.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE states that the applicant’s RE Code of 2C 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 30 May 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 substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  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.  We note that the applicant has provided no evidence pertaining to his post-service activities.  Should he provide evidence to substantiate that he has maintained the standards of good citizenship in the community since his discharge, the Board may be willing to reconsider his request for the purpose of clemency.  In the absence of such evidence or showing that the information in the discharge case file is erroneous or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority, 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 31 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            MMember
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00674.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 18 Dec 87.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Apr 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 May 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.

                                   
                                   Acting Panel Chair