RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03557
		INDEX CODE:  110.03

		COUNSEL:  

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would enable him to reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 7 January 1999 he was married while in the process of transferring between duty stations: Kunsan Air Base (AB), South Korea, to Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah.  His new wife was pregnant.  Four hours after he was wed, he left for Hill AFB with the promise he would return for his wife in February 1999 after he was settled into his new duty station.  His wife’s parents visited their daughter and demanded an answer for what he and his new wife had done.  In March 1999, his wife’s parents moved her to Idaho in an attempt to hide her from him.  During this time, he made contact with her and found out she had miscarried their baby.  In April 1999, he was involved in a car accident on the way to Idaho to pick up his wife and suffered a herniated disk in his back for which he was hospitalized.  Her parents found out about his attempt to retrieve their daughter and moved her to California.  Shortly after, in May 1999, his wife returned to her parent’s home in Mt. Vernon, Washington.  He left Hill AFB for Washington on 10 May 1999, spoke with his wife, was convinced by her that the marriage was over, and returned to Hill AFB to face whatever punishment awaited him there.

On 4 May 1999, he was ordered to participate in a random urinalysis drug test.  He signed the acknowledgment form that morning at his orderly room where he was ordering Career Development Course (CDC) materials.  He was radioed to return to work, which he did.  All attempts to get a ride to the Demand Reduction Facility for his urinalysis test after returning to work were unsuccessful.  Consequently, he went, with his supervisor, to the base hospital where he provided a sample that tested negative.  On 10 May 1999, he left his duty station without permission to travel to Mt. Vernon, Washington, to confront his wife.  On 11 June 1999, he turned himself in to security forces at McChord AFB, Washington and was put on a plane back to Hill AFB.  He subsequently pleaded guilty for Failure to Go (urinalysis testing) and for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL), from 10 May through 10 June 1999.  He was convicted of both and given a choice of a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) or confinement.  He chose the BCD and was subsequently discharged with a BCD after reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.

He argues since he was restricted to the base (Hill AFB), that he was unable, at the time, to gather any pertinent documents that may have helped him defend himself.  He feels he now has more understanding and maturity and that he could be an asset to the military.  His first three and one half years of service were honorable and he participated in the Honor Guard, volunteered for community service, and other base functions, and earned the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM).  Since his discharge, he has been an asset to his community by volunteering in several areas and has earned his Associates degree.  He asks that he be able to serve in the AF again, but if not then asks for an RE Code that would enable him to serve in one of the other services.  He understands a “corrected” RE code will not guarantee his acceptance into any branch of the military service.  He has kept himself within AF standards, physically, mentally and morally.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided personal statements from himself and his wife, letters of support from his current and past employers, copies of information regarding RE codes from the Air Force Personnel Center’s (AFPC’s) web site, a copy of the Letter of Restriction (LOR) from his commander at Hill AFB, a copy of his package to the Discharge Review Board, a portion of his military training record, copies of various letters of appreciation, work schedules, and certificates related to his volunteerism, copies of his higher education work and diploma’s, a copy of his travel order from Kunsan AB to Hill AFB, copies of Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR’s) for the period 6 September 1996 through 7 May 1999, copies of civilian performance appraisals, stock ownership certificates, a marriage certificate, a police record check dated XX January XXXX from Mt Vernon, WA, and copies of college transcripts.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered Regular Active Duty on 17 April 1996.  He attained the rank of senior airman (SRA/E-4) with a date of rank of 17 April 1999.  On 22 July 1999, he was demoted to the lowest enlisted grade available: Airman Basic (E-1) and discharged with a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) effective 9 November 2000 pursuant to his conviction for being AWOL and for Failure to Go.  On 23 January 2003, he testified before a Discharge Review Board (DRB) that found the discharge to be consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but the punishment given for the offenses was simply too harsh.  The DRB did not think the crimes so serious as to justify a BCD and therefore, granted clemency in the form of his discharge being upgraded to general (under honorable conditions).  He was discharged with an RE code of “2B”, Discharged under General under-other-than-honorable conditions.
_________________________________________________________________

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.  Evidence has not been provided in support of his appeal that would lead us to believe that a change to his RE code is warranted.  We took note of his complete submission in judging the merits of this case and while we support the Discharge Review Board’s act of clemency in upgrading his discharge, we are not persuaded he has suffered either an error or injustice regarding the RE code he received for his conduct while on active duty.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03557 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 Oct 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Nov 03.