RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00215
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 2B be changed so that he may reenter the service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was misinformed or misunderstood when his told him recruiter that after six months he could reenlist and get into a different tech school.  If he had known this was not true, he would not have asked for the discharge.  He enlisted in the Air Force because he wanted the experience and education, but most importantly, to serve his country with respect, honor, dignity and that has not changed. It is his desire still to do just that.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 October 2001 for a period of six years.  Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 22 March 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct - minor disciplinary infractions) with an RE code of 2B and service uncharacterized in the grade of airman basic. He served 5 months and 20 days of total active military service.

On 26 Nov 01, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions.  On 29 January 2002, he received a Letter of Reprimand when he failed to show up for his physical therapy appointment.  On 31 January 2002, he received a Letter of Reprimand when he failed to show up for physical conditioning, failed to show up for accountability, and failed to sign out for his appointment.  On 14 February 2002, he received an Article 15 when he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty for morning accountability.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge on 5 March 2002 and waived his rights to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in his behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support separation.  The discharge authority approved the separation and ordered a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. However, he commander should have ordered an entry level separation/uncharacterized service characterization for misconduct, since applicant served less that 180 days continuous active service.  Applicant’s DD Form 214 was corrected to reflect that he received an entry level separation and his service was uncharacterized.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial and states the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  He did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  5 March 2004 for review and comment 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After careful consideration of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE code.  In our opinion, given the multiplicity of the offenses he committed against the good order and discipline of the service, and the short period of time in which he served, the RE code appears to be proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we are not inclined to recommend favorable consideration of his request.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-00215 in Executive Session on 13 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Ms. X and Mr. X voted to deny the appeal; Mr. X recused himself from voting.

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 04.

                                   Panel Chair