RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00140
		INDEX CODE:  110.00, 100.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B be changed.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told by his commander and the separation office that he would be able to come back in the military.  However, when he tried to reenter the service, he was told he could not come back because of his RE code.

There were no supporting documents submitted.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman first class (E-3) on 21 July 1999 for a period of four years.  He was reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1), with a date of rank (DOR) of 21 June 2000, pursuant to an Article 15.

On 29 June 2000, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for a pattern of misconduct; specifically, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  During the period 28 January 2000 through 21 June 2000, the applicant received four counseling sessions, five Letters of Reprimand, two Article 15s and one vacated Article 15 (refer to Exhibit C for details).  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, waived his option to consult counsel and declined to submit any written statement in his behalf.  On 7 July 2000, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge.

The applicant received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge on 12 July 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (misconduct).  He had completed a total of 11 months and 22 days of active duty service and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code of 2B, which defined means "Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge."
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denial.  DPPRS identifies the applicant’s misconduct as follows:

	1.	Letter of Counseling (LOC) (28 Jan 00) - failure to go to his appointed place of duty at his scheduled time.

	2.	LOR (4 Feb 00) - underage drinking.

	3.	Article 15 (17 Feb 00) - signing a false official statement and wrongfully endeavored to impede an investigation, on or about 1 Feb 00.

	4.	Verbal counseling - received three Armed Forces Traffic Tickets for no car registration, no car insurance and for failing to stop at a stop sign.

	5.	LOR (5 Apr 00) - disobeyed an order from his doctor on or about 28 Mar 00 and on or about 30 Mar 00.

	6.	LOR (17 Apr 00) - failure to stop at a stop sign, on or about 28 Mar 00; driving in an unsafe manner while driving a government vehicle, on or about 5 Apr 00; and, failure to stop at a stop sign in a residential area, on or about 11 Apr 00.

	7.	Verbal counseling and government license revoked (20 Apr 00) - driving in an erratic manner.

	8.	Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment (3 May 00) - being derelict in the performance of his duties when he failed to obey a traffic law while driving a government vehicle by turning left at a red light.

	9.	LOR (11 May 00) - being derelict in the performance of his duties when he looked like he was sleeping while at work; and, for being disrespectful to an airman.

	10.	Verbal counseling (16 May 00) - receiving two Armed Forces Traffic Tickets for breaking tread and driving on an expired license.

	11.	Letter of Reprimand (LOR) (5 Jun 00) - using provoking speech and/or gestures directly at an on-duty security force member.

	12.	Article 15 (21 Jun 00) - failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the scheduled time.

DPPRS states that, based on the documentation on file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 20 February 2004 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are unpersuaded 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.  Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 this application in Executive Session on 22 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00140.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 04.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Feb 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Feb 04.

                                   Panel Chair