RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01156
						 (Case 2)
		INDEX CODE:  110.00, 100.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B be changed to allow eligibility to reenlist.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While on active duty he had an alcohol problem.  Rather than provide the alcohol counseling he requested, he was discharged.

In support of his request, applicant provides his employment record as follows:  General Dynamics for ten years; ALCOA for four and one-half years; Stewart Werner for four and one-half years; and, currently with Bristol Compressors.  No supporting documents were submitted.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) on 21 June 1979 for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3), with an effective date and date of rank of 4 February 1980.  He was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2), with a new date of rank (DOR) of 15 May 1980, pursuant to an Article 15.

On 26 August 1980, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge.  The reason for this action was due to the applicant’s defective attitude as evidenced by his failure to maintain the prescribed standards of military deportment.

	-  22 April 1980, Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to report to his duty section at the time prescribed, on or about 21 April 1980, with an Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

	-  8 May 1980, Article 15 for failure to go, on or about 1 May 1980, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  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 (until 8 November 1980) and forfeiture of $50.00.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

	-  12 May 1980, counseled by the First Sergeant for not being in compliance with AFR 35-10, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel, and for not meeting the military standards for room cleanliness.

	-  28 May 1980, applicant admitted that he was the source of obscene phone calls.

	-  6 August 1980, Notification of Intent to Vacate Suspended 15 May 1980 Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) for failure to go to appointed place of duty, on or about 3 August 1980, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  The applicant consulted a lawyer and made an oral presentation.  On 12 August 1980, after considering all matters presented to him, the commander vacated applicant’s suspended reduction to the grade of airman, with a new date of rank.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.  On 29 August 1980, applicant was interviewed and counseled concerning his rights by the Area Defense Counsel.  The applicant declined to submit any written statements in his behalf.  The local Acting Staff Judge Advocate recommended a general discharge, without conditional suspension and rehabilitation.  On 5 September 1980, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge.

He received a general discharge on 5 September 1980 under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (unsuitable-apathy-defective attitude-board waiver).  He had completed a total of 1 year, 2 months and 15 days and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code of 2B, which defined means "Separated with other than an honorable discharge."

Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 28 May 1991.  In 1991, applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) for upgrade of his discharge.  His application was denied as untimely by the Board on 5 December 1991.  A copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP), Docket Number 91‑02392, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denial.  DPPRS states that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denial.  DPPAE states that the applicant’s record reflects a history of disciplinary actions contrary to good order and discipline.  The RE Code of 2B 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 19 June 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.  Applicant’s work history was duly noted and we commend his conduct since his discharge from the service.  However, no persuasive evidence was provided 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.  In view of the above and absent evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 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 issue(s) 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-2003-01156 in Executive Session on 14 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Mar 03.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, dated 5 Dec 91, with
               AFDRB Hearing Record.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 May 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 17 Jun 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair