RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01690
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires a change in his RE code to allow him to enlist in the Coast Guard.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 January 1983 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 15 September 1985, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for a pattern of misconduct - specific reasons follow:

	On 3 June 1984, he was given a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) with an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) for the use of insulting words in public.

	On 21 June 1985, the applicant was punished under Article 15 nonjudicial punishment for being drunk and disorderly on station.  After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, did not request a personal appearance and did submit a written presentation.  He was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment:  Forfeiture of $200.00 for one month and to perform extra duty for 30 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was not filed in his UIF.

	On 19 August 1985, the applicant was punished under Article 15 nonjudicial punishment for being drunk and disorderly; willful damage to the fire station by spray painting various areas of it, damaged fire fighting pants and boots by defecating in them and breaking a fire station trophy.  After consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and did not submit a written presentation.  He was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment:  reduction to the grade of airman basic, with a new date of rank (DOR) of 19 August 1985 and ordered to perform extra duty for 30 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was filed in his UIF.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that the applicant was counseled by his supervisor and the Fire Chief concerning his problems.  Additionally, he was counseled by the Installation Chaplain on numerous occasions.  The commander did not recommend probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant had not benefited from past rehabilitation efforts and further attempts would have been futile.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 18 September 1985, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 7 October 1985, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant be separated from the United States Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant had demonstrated by his actions that despite rehabilitative efforts he would not conform his conduct to Air Force standards.  Any further attempt at rehabilitation was unwarranted.  A general discharge accurately characterized the applicant’s term of service.

On 11 October 1985, the administrative discharge was approved.

A resume of the applicant's performance reports follows:

		PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			13 Jan 83			8
			19 Nov 84			9

Applicant was discharged on 15 October 1985, in the grade of airman basic, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions), in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern Discreditable Involvement with Military or Civil Authorities) with an RE code of 2B - “Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions.”  He completed 2 years, 9 months and 2 days of total active duty service.

On 5 November 1987 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to an honorable discharge.  They indicated that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  There exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  He has filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE indicated that the applicant’s RE code of 2B, “Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions,” is correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 July 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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 an error or injustice that would warrant a change to his RE code.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives.  Applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe otherwise.  Therefore, we agree with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rational as the basis for our conclusion that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2003-01690 in Executive Session on 4 September 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 June 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 July 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 July 2003.

                                   Panel Chair