RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03678
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from a “2B” to an RE code that would allow him to reenter the military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge, he was 20 years old and did not realize the benefits of being in the military.  He is now 31 years old and realizes the mistake he made.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 July 1990, as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 5 February 1992, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for discharge for Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The commander recommended a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  The reasons for the discharge action were:

	a.  On 11 October 1990, the applicant failed three times to properly clean a command car.  For this, he received a Record of Counseling (ROC), dated 11 October 1990.

	b.  On 17 October 1990, the applicant failed to meet an appointment with the Commander.  For this, the applicant received an ROC, dated 18 October 1990.

	c.  On 30 November 1990, the applicant was stopped by Security Police where they found his .22 caliber rifle which had not been registered on base.  For this misconduct, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 6 December 1990.

	d.  The applicant on 5 December 1990, reported late for his dental appointment causing the appointment to be rescheduled.  For this, he received an ROC, dated 12 December 1990.

	e.  On 4 August 1991, while not of legal drinking age, consumed alcoholic beverages and drove a motor vehicle.  For this misconduct, the applicant received an LOR, dated 15 August 1991.

	f.  On 7 August 1991, the applicant failed to report to the track area for his aerobics run.  For this, he received an ROC dated, 7 August 1991.

	g.  On 11 September 1991, the applicant was caught driving 101 miles per hour (MPH) in a 45 MPH zone.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR, dated 23 October 1991, an ROC, dated 16 October 1991, and his Government Drivers License was revoked.

	h.  On 1 October 1991, the applicant failed to report to duty on time.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR, dated 1 October 1991.

	i.  On 19 January 1992, the applicant was one hour late for his Reading Test.  For this, he received an LOR, dated 27 January 1992.

	j.  On or between 25-26 January 1992, the applicant failed to report to duty on time.  For this, misconduct he received an ROC dated, 28 January 1992.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained for him; and to submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 10 February 1992, the applicant after consulting with counsel, waived his right to submit statements on his behalf.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that the applicant was repeatedly counseled and issued several forms of administrative actions in an effort to bring his (applicant’s) behavior in compliance to Air Force standards.  The commander further recommended the applicant be discharged without probation and rehabilitation.

A legal review was conducted on 11 February 1992 in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

On 11 February 1992, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 14 February 1992, in the grade of airman with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions).  He served a total of 1 year, 7 months and 12 days of active service.  He received an RE code of “2B” which indicates the applicant was involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, based on the information and evidence provided, they recommend the applicant's request be denied.

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

EXAMINER’S NOTE:  Applicant does not contest the accuracy of the RE code and after reviewing the applicable regulation, AFR 39-10, it appears the RE code is correct.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 December 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the appropriate directives.  Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate the processing of his discharge or the RE code he received was in error or unjust.  Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 Docket Number BC-2003-03678 in Executive Session on 10 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Nov 03 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 20 Nov 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRB, dated 5 Dec 03.