RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00972

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be upgraded to allow his enlistment in the Armed Forces.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While his conduct on active duty was immature, he does not believe that a permanent bar from reenlistment is a just punishment.

The applicant states that he lacked the proper motivation and personal direction to satisfactorily perform in the Air Force.  Poor decision-making on his part led to numerous mistakes in managing his finances and behavior.  He has learned from these poor decisions and strongly desires the opportunity to enlist.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits letters of recommendation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman first class on 12 July 2001, for a period of six years.

On 11 February 2002, he was disenrolled from the Aerospace Ground Equipment Apprentice course for failing to satisfactory progress in training.

In a letter, dated 8 March 2002, the commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26.1 (unsatisfactory duty performance) and paragraph 5.49 (minor disciplinary infractions). Specifically, the commander noted the two Letters of Reprimand (LORs) he received for failing to adhere to daily call to quarters and failing to go to his appointed duty, and numerous Records of Individual Counseling for incidents involving dereliction in the performance of duty, failure to make satisfactory progress in required training resulting in disenrollment, failure to go to prescribed duty on time, financial mismanagement, and several missed appointments.  He waived his right to counsel and to submit statements in his behalf.  The discharge authority approved the separation on 12 March 2002, without probation and rehabilitation.

On 20 March 2002, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was issued an RE code of “2B.”  He completed 8 months and 9 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

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 discretionary authority of the discharge authority.  He did not identify any error or injustice in the discharge processing or other facts warranting an upgrade.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the RE code of “2B” accurately identified him as being separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

The AFPC/DPPAE 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, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the appropriate directives.  While he has provided several letters in support of his appeal, we believe that due to the numerous incidents of misconduct and his short period of service, a change in this RE code is not justified.  In view of the above determination, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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-2003-00972 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 15 Mar 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 20 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair