RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01460
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) and separation codes be changed to allow him to reenter military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received several parking tickets prior to entering active duty.  He gave the tickets to his mother for her to take care of.  Shortly, after giving his mother the tickets he left for Florida and from Florida he entered into active duty.  He assumed his mother had paid the tickets.  While in basic training he was informed that some of the tickets were not paid.  He contacted his mother and she confirmed that some of the tickets had not been paid.  He took care of one ticket, but did not have enough time to pay the remaining tickets because he needed a waiver and did not have sufficient time before his next duty station.  He was told he would be discharged from the Air Force and could reenter after the tickets had been paid.

He recently tried to reenlist in the Air Force and was told he could not reenlist in active duty and the only way he could reenter the Air Force would be through the reserves and then go to technical school and try to enter into active duty once he finished technical school.  He visited an Air Force Reserves’ recruiting office and was informed that his separation and reentry codes did not match.

He would like this information to be considered in the decision in allowing him to reenter into active duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 July 2001, as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 18 September 2001, the training squadron interviewed the applicant for possible fraudulent entry for concealment of a violation of the law.  The following is a list of his violations:

		August 2000, Killeen, TX - Speeding, paid $100 fine.
		August 2000, Killeen, TX - No Driver’s License, paid $80 fine.
		August 2000, Killeen, TX - Seat Belt violation, paid $90 fine.
		November 2000, C Cove, TX - No Insurance, paid $300 fine.
		November 2000, C Cove, TX - Seat Belt violation, paid $90 fine.
		January 2001, C Cove, TX - Speeding, paid $95 fine.

On 19 September 2001, the applicant’s training squadron indicated in a 14 August 2001, Memorandum to Whom it May Concern, that they had initiated a waiver request for over five (5) outstanding (unpaid) traffic violations that the applicant had not listed on Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions.  The Memo indicated that these open violations were disqualifying for entry in the Air Force and that the applicant was allowed three (3) weeks to provided a receipt of payment; only then would the waiver request be pursued.  The Memo further indicated that on 17 September 2001, the applicant advised that he had paid the fines in full and provided a receipt of payment.  The Memo indicated that the squadron was advised on 18 September 2001 by the Recruiting Services Liaison that the applicant had two more violations that were unpaid and that had not been revealed.  It was requested that either approval or disapproval be given for the applicant to be retained to pay and resolve the fines; if not approved for retention, then he would be transferred for discharge processing.  The two new violations were for no seat belt with a $140 fine and no driver’s license violation with a $89 fine.

On 25 September 2001, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for an Entry Level Separation based on fraudulent entry.

The commander stated the specific reason for the proposed discharge was that the applicant failed to disclose on his Standard Form (SF) 86 all traffic violations.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel, and if he so desired an appointment would be made upon request.  He was advised that failure to consult with counsel or submit statements could constitute his waiver of his rights to do so.

On 25 September 2001, the applicant, after consulting with counsel, waived his right to submit a statement.

On 26 September 2001, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be separated with an entry-level separation.

On 28 September 2001, the discharge authority approved the entry-level discharge.

The applicant was separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation on 2 October 2001 for fraudulent entry into the Air Force, in the grade of AB and issued an RE code of “2C”, Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states the Department of Defense (DOD) determined that, if a member served less than 180 days of continuous active service, he would receive an entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation was initiated.  The separation is uncharacterized because it would be unfair to the member and the service to try and characterize the limited time served.  DPPRS further states the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Nor, has the applicant provided any evidence identifying any errors or injustices in the processing of his discharge.  Based on the evidence provided they recommend the requested relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAES states the reenlistment eligibility code "2C" is the applicable code for a member separated involuntarily with an honorable discharge, or entry-level separation without characterization of service.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11 July 2003, for review and response.  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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that the discharge action and the resulting reenlistment eligibility and separation codes he received were in error or unjust.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to rectify the situation with his traffic violations and failed to properly do so.  Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01460 in Executive Session on 26 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 3 May 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Jun 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Jul 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.

							
					Panel Chair