RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03584
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B be changed to a waiverable code.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He and his first squad leader did not get along right from the start.  This incident started a series of events that eventually led to his discharge.  Since his separation he has been going to school part-time, working in a bank and as a personal trainer at a fitness facility.  He is now 26 years old and by 2004 will be earning his associates degree.  He has taught himself two languages, Spanish and German.  He is currently married with his first child on the way.

In support of the appeal, applicant provides a personal statement, three character references and a copy of his DD Form 214.  Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 April 1996 for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade or airman.

On 1 May 1997, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for discharge for minor disciplinary infractions (misconduct) with a general discharge.  Bases for the action were:  Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and placement of the LOR in the Unfavorable Information File (UIF) for failing to report to his appointed place of duty on or about 1 January 1997 and on or about 3 January 1997; Article 15 and placement of the Article 15 in the UIF for falling asleep on duty on 19 December 1996 (punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman basic); LOR and placement of the LOR in the UIF for falling asleep on duty on 5 November 1996; verbal counseling for inadvertently driving into a chain that held down scaffolding; Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to take a pretest for ART/SART leader; and LOC for failing to clean a weapon used during the Wing Exercise on 12 and 14 October 1996.  Applicant submitted a statement.  The base legal office reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.  They agreed with the commander’s recommendation for discharge and recommended applicant be separated from the service with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  

The applicant had been initially served an administrative discharge in January of 1997, but his discharge was withdrawn after he was referred to Wilford Hall for a sleeping disorder.  He received an evaluation at Wilford Hall where he was found to have poor sleep habits.

The Discharge Authority approved the separation on 16 May 1997 and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 16 May 1997 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (misconduct) and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He served one year, one month and six days on active duty.  He was assigned a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states the RE code of 2B was correct.  A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 February 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those allegations.  The Board majority specifically made note of the fact that, in his response to the recommendation for discharge submitted on 5 May 1997, the applicant stated, “I feel that the Air Force is definitely a good thing for some people, but just not for me.  I feel that my personality does not meet the standards of a military member.  I am not good with authority, but I am working on it.  I honestly do not feel that I am compatible with the Air Force way of life.”  In view of the information in the record leading up to his separation, the Board majority believes that this was an astute observation by the applicant and, even though he apparently is performing successfully as a part time military member, he has not provided persuasive evidence showing that his reaction to the restrictive military environment on a full time basis would be different today than it was seven years ago.  Therefore, the majority of the Board agrees with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopts their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice In view of the above, the majority finds no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 22 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  Mr.    voted to correct the records and submits a Minority Report for review.  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, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Feb 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 25 Feb 04.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Feb 04.
	Exhibit F.  Minority Report, dated 29 Apr 04.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2003-03584
INDEX CODE:  112.00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
			FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.

							

AFBCMR BC-2003-03584
INDEX CODE:  112.00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY

SUBJECT:  , DOCKET NO. BC-2003-03584

	There was no error or injustice committed at the time of Applicant’s processing for discharge, but he has demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation for a grant on grounds of clemency.  Failure to do so constitutes an injustice and is not in the best interests of the United States.

	Applicant’s offenses were concentrated in a three-month period from Oct 96 to Jan 97.  The most severe of these was an Article 15 for sleeping at his post (Applicant was a security policeman on guard duty).  Applicant’s commission of serious breaches of discipline and good order should not be minimized.  His commander at the time no doubt took into consideration the potential mitigating circumstances of age, immaturity, and problems at home.  The fact remains Applicant was a 19-year old ill-equipped to handle the unexpected demands of military life aggravated by the sexual molestation of his sister.  He felt he had no option but to leave the military.  In responding to his recommendation for discharge, he stated that his “personality does not meet the standards of a military member” and that he was “incompatible with the Air Force way of life.”  There is no doubt whatsoever Applicant was treated fairly and that he agreed with the discharge at the time.

	Now, seven years after Applicant by his own admission botched an opportunity for a military career, he does not appear to be the same person.  He does not blame others for his own shortcomings.  In his application to this Board, he states “I know and accept full responsibility for my actions in the short time I spent in Altus, Oklahoma…I not only let myself down, I let my squadron and commanders down as well.”  There is no evasiveness or blame-shifting, showing a commendable degree of maturity.

	Applicant is serving as a cavalry scout in the XXXXX National Guard and requires an upgrade of his discharge to return to active duty.  In today’s world, a soldier in that specialty is likely to deploy to fight our nation’s battles.  His Recruiting and Retention NCO, a combat arms veteran of 20 years, attests that Applicant “is highly motivated, trust worthy and possesses all the characteristics and traits to make an outstanding soldier, especially in a combat arms related field.”  The principal at Applicant’s former high school and current school at which his child is enrolled notes that he has matured and is bright and motivated.  His youth minister also notes his
development, as well as his integrity and leadership ability.  Finally, Applicant notes his commitment to earning a degree and that he is now married with a child on the way.  This is not the same troubled young man who slept at his post.

	The Board will rarely see a case in which an individual has so demonstrably turned his life around while he is still young enough to serve.  Applicant’s petition for a waiverable code (suggest 3K, Secretarial Authority) must be granted not only to let Applicant make amends for his past misconduct, but to afford a military service the opportunity to judge for itself whether or not this Applicant, today, meets the standards demanded of a military member.  To do otherwise does indeed constitute an injustice.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                  FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Case on 

	I have carefully reviewed the circumstances of this case and do not agree with the recommendation of the majority of the panel that applicant’s request to have his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B changed to a waiverable code should be denied.

	After considering the evidence provided for my review, I agree with the minority member of the panel that the applicant’s request should be granted.  In this regard, I note the fact that the applicant is serving as a cavalry scout in the XXXXX National Guard, and, the favorable comments from his Recruiting and Retention NCO, a combat arms veteran of 20 years, voicing his opinion that the applicant is highly motivated, trustworthy and possesses all the characteristics and traits to make an outstanding soldier, especially in a combat arms related field.  In view of this, I believe he should be afforded a second chance to serve.  Therefore, it is my decision that his RE code should be changed to 3K, which is a code that can be waived for prior service enlistment consideration, provided he meets all other requirements for enlistment under an existing prior service program.

						

AFBCMR BC-2003-03584
INDEX CODE:  112.00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to, be corrected to show that, at the time of his discharge on 16 May 1997, his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code was RE-3K.