RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00149
		INDEX NUMBER: 100.06

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to permit his reentry on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to his discharge, he was on a remote assignment and desperate to return to the Continental United States (CONUS) to find his wife and son.  When he questioned his commander as to how he could return to the CONUS, his commander suggested that he could start Article 15 proceedings and give him a quick discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 21 August 1996.  On 10 June 2002, he received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for misconduct - minor disciplinary infractions.  The commander’s reasons for the action were applicant’s receipt of five letters of reprimand for failing to go at the time prescribed to his place of duty on two separation occasions; failing to go to an appointment at Life Skills; failing to follow an order to attend a mandatory formation; being insubordinate towards a Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) on the telephone; and a verbal counseling for failing to attend a mandatory Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) testing appointment.  The discharge authority approved the discharge and he received a general discharge on 1 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct), and was issued RE code 2B (Involuntarily separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge).  He had completed a total of 5 years, 10 months, and 11 days of active service and was serving in the grade of senior airman (E-4) at the time of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence of any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 February 2004 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant upgrading the applicant’s RE code. In this respect, we note that the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Instruction in effect at the time of his separation and that he was afforded all the rights to which entitled. Furthermore, he provides no evidence that his separation was inappropriate or that the assigned RE code reflecting his involuntary separation was in error or unjust.  There being insufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-00149 in Executive Session on 14 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Feb 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.

                                                                      Panel Chair