RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00912
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2B, “Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge,” be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There is no error in her records; she would just like a second chance.  She enjoyed her time in the Air Force and now feels that she can be an asset.  

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 Apr 98 for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1).  Her highest grade held was airman (E-2).

On 22 Sep 99, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for Misconduct, Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were:

On or about 27 Jan 99, applicant failed to go to her appointed place of duty, for which she received a no-show letter from the dental clinic.

Between 31 Mar 99 and 5 Apr 99, she failed to go to Bay Orderly.  On 8 Apr 99, she wrongfully used foul and provoking words towards one of her peers.  For this misconduct, she received an Article 15.  The Article 15 punishment imposed on the applicant consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic, forfeiture of $200 pay per month for two months, 30 days of correctional custody, and establishment of an unfavorable information file (UIF).

On or about 17 Apr 99, she was derelict in the performance of her duties, by refusing to serve a customer at the Diners Reef Dining facility, for which she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

On or about 26 Apr 99, applicant was disrespectful to her superior noncommissioned officer by not acknowledging him, for which she received a letter of counseling (LOC).

On or about 28 Apr 99, applicant was disrespectful to her superior noncommissioned officer by turning her back on him and walking away, for which she received an LOC.

On 19 Jul 99 and 29 Jul 99, she failed to go to the pre-Change of Command formation.  For these actions, she received an LOR, which was placed in her existing UIF.

On or about 8 Aug 99, she was derelict in the performance of her duties by willfully throwing out two dozen eggs so as not to serve customers and wrongfully used foul and provoking words towards a civilian contractor.  For this misconduct, she received an Article 15.  The Article 15 punishment imposed on the applicant consisted of forfeiture of $479 pay per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty, and restriction to the base.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.  On 27 Sep 99, after consulting with counsel, she submitted statements in her own behalf, along with character references.  On 30 Sep 99, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally sufficient to justify an administrative discharge for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions and recommended that the applicant be separated with a general discharge, without probation or rehabilitation.  On 5 Oct 99, the discharge authority approved a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.

On 7 Oct 99, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 by reason of misconduct, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions), and was issued RE code 2B.  She served 1 year, 5 months, and 22 days on active duty.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing nor did she provide any facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE also reviewed this application and indicated that the RE code of 2B, “Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge” is correct.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 Jun 03 for review and comment 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.  At the time a member is separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE Code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation.  The assigned code reflects the Air Force’s position regarding whether or not, or under what circumstances, the individual should be allowed to reenlist.  After careful consideration of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the assigned RE code is in error or unjust or that an upgrade of the RE code is warranted.  We therefore conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request that it be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00912 in Executive Session on 20 Aug 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 03. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair