RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00768

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.	His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be adjusted so that he may reenlist in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He excelled during the first part of his career in basic training and technical school; however, following his medical problems with asthma, several Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) within his command became obsessed with forcing him out of the Air Force.

The applicant states that he never wanted to leave the military, but he did need to be at a better base.  He knows that he can do better with a second chance.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits his personal statement, a letter of appreciation from the Base Blood Drive Project Officer, and a Memorandum for Record from an individual who was in charge of the applicant’s detail.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 June 1999 for a period of four years.

During Basic Military Training (BMT), he was presented for medical evaluation on 19 August 1999, with nasal and chest congestion and shortness of breath.  He was diagnosed with upper respiratory infection with reactive airway disease and treated with a nebulizer.

During Technical Training School, he was presented for medical evaluation on 30 September 1999, after performing some low crawls in a dusty environment.  His audible expiratory wheezes cleared with a nebulizer treatment.  He was diagnosed with allergic rhinitis and treated with a profile and Deconamine.  He was seen in the emergency room later that night complaining of dryness from the Deconamine, which made it difficult for him to breathe.  He was referred for pulmonary consultation, at which time he was diagnosed with pre-existing asthma, dating back to childhood when he had problems with cats, which had been unmasked by recent events.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 9 March 2000, for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued on active duty.  Based on the diagnosis of asthma, the MEB recommended he be referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

An IPEB convened on 22 March 2000, and based on the diagnoses of asthma, VASRD 6602, recommended he be discharged with 10% severance pay.  The IPEB also noted his tobacco abuse, which they found to be not unfitting, compensable, or ratable.  He agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IPEB on 24 March 2000.

The commander notified him on 17 April 2000, that he was recommending his administrative discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49, for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions.  The commander indicated the following reasons for the action:

	a.	On 4 December 1999, an investigation revealed that he had willfully consumed alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21, for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 15 February 2000.

	b.	On 1 February 2000, he failed to report to his appointed place of duty on time, for which he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 1 February 2000.

	c.	On 16 February 2000, it was reported that he made derogatory comments against another flight, for which he received an LOC, dated 17 February 2000.

	d.	It was brought to the attention of his supervisor that he failed to report to work on time for the third time in 30 days, for which he received an LOR, dated 2 March 2000.

	e.	On 5 March 2000, he failed to report to his appointed place of duty, for which he received an Article 15, dated 14 March 2000.

	f.	On 14 March 2000, he disobeyed a lawful order when he failed to wear his proper rank on his uniform, for which he received an LOR, dated 17 March 2000.

After consulting with military counsel, he submitted statements in his behalf, and requested to be given the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation.  He also requested that his administrative discharge be dual-processed in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 6.30, due to his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).

His administrative discharge and disability case were forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for dual processing.  The SAFPC determined his medical condition did not contribute to, or aggravate, his misconduct and the seriousness of his misconduct outweighed the gravity of his medical condition.  On 25 May 2000, the SAFPC directed discharge by execution of the involuntary discharge action and terminated the disability processing action.

On 8 June 2000, he was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Minor Disciplinary Infractions) and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He was assigned an RE code of “2B” (Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge).”  He completed 10 months and 26 days of active service.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge on 7 September 2000, with a rehearing on 20 December 2000, with no change in the discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPAE states, in part, that the RE Code of “2B” accurately identifies the applicant’s involuntary separation with a general discharge.

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and 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.  In addition, he provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 May 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, and given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, we are not persuaded that his discharge should be upgraded or that a change to his RE code is warranted.  He has not established that the commander abused his discretionary authority in initiating discharge action against him.  In regard to his request for a change in his RE code, we note that the RE code issued at the time of separation was in compliance with the appropriate directives.  In view of the above finding, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rational expressed as the basis for our decision.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-00768 in Executive Session on 17 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair