RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03219
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and reason for discharge be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he was reduced in grade from senior airman (E-4) to airman (E-2), he had a choice to either remain in the service or leave.  He chose to leave.  He contends the RE code he received (2B-Discharged under General or other-than-honorable conditions) was unfair as a result.  He also states his reason for discharge of “Misconduct” is incorrect.  He has obtained his Associates degree and has been an active member of his community since his discharge and would like a chance to reenlist.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided two letters of support and a copy of his Associate in Arts degree diploma.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered active duty on 21 November 1992.  He received a special court-martial on 2 March 1999 wherein he was found guilty of failing to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully using his government computer to create non-official documents for his personal use between 1 April 1998 and 30 June 1998, unlawfully entering a privately-owned warehouse between 1 November 1997 and 28 February 1998, and between 1 November 1997 and 28 February 1998, wrongfully switching various automobile parts and vehicle identification plates which he later misrepresented to a bankruptcy court.  He was punished with reduction to airman, confinement for six months, to perform hard labor without confinement for three months, and restricted to the base for two months.  His commander notified him he was being discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, for misconduct.  He was discharged on 2 July 1999 after serving six years, three months, and eleven days of active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP recommends denial.  Upon addressing the discharge process, DPPRSP states the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in his discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge.  DPPRSP holds that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discharge authorities discretion.

DPPRSP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 October 2003 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 an error or injustice warranting changes to the applicant’s RE code.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case to include his assertion that the RE code he received was unfair and that the discharge for misconduct was incorrect; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe that the discharge action was unfair or incorrect.  Therefore, 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-2003-03219 in Executive Session on 6 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 16 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.