RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00732
		
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 12 June 2003, he appeared before the Air Force Discharge Review Board, and is very pleased and grateful with the upgrade of his character of service from a general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable.  He still finds it difficult to reenlist due to his reentry code.  

In support of his appeal, he submitted a personal letter, a copy of DD Form 293 and supporting documentation, divorce decree, copy of the Air Force Discharge Review Board Hearing findings, and 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 September 1992 for a period of four years.  Applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 26 June 1995 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct) with an RE code of 2C and a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served 2 years, 9 months and 16 days of total active military service.

On 5 June 1995, the applicant’s commander notified him the he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions and commission of a serious offense.  The commander was recommending applicant receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge base on the following:

On 11 June 1993, he received Letter of Counseling for failing to attend a Director of Personnel Call despite the fact that it was a mandatory formation; On 22 October 1993, he received Letter of Counseling for failing to attend a morning workout session that was mandatory; On 26 October 1994, he received an Article 15 for disobeying a lawful order issued by a noncommissioned officer not to use official telephones for unofficial calls; On 30 January 1995, he received Letter of Counseling for being 15 minutes late for work after being briefed previously on the necessity of arriving at work on-time; On 1 March 1995, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to report for duty at the required time; On 21 April 1995, he received Letter of Counseling for parking in a parking stall designated specifically for customer parking only; On 28 April 1995, he received a LOR for violating the trust that was given to him by his supervisor by informing an individual that she would be discharged; On 1 May 1995, he received Letter of Admonishment for failing to attend a mandatory Personal Financial Management Program appointment; and on 2 May 1995, he received a LOR for initiating a physical altercation between himself and his wife, and for being involved in a mutual assault between himself and his wife.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge on 5 June 1995 and indicated he understood his rights to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf.  On  8 June 1995, applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge and recommended a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 30 December 2002, applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  The AFDRB considered all the evidence of record and concluded there was sufficient mitigation and extenuation in the applicant’s circumstances at the time to substantiate upgrading the discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for separation.  However, the AFDRB determined the applicant’s reenlistment (RE) code would not be changed.    

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial stating the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The AFDRB previously reviewed all the evidence of record and concluded the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation; within the discretion of the discharge authority; and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  However, the board further concluded that the overall quality of applicant’s service was more accurately reflected by an honorable discharge.  Applicant’s characterization of discharge was changed from general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, but no change to the reenlistment eligibility code was warranted.  Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and he provided no facts warranting a change his reenlistment eligibility code.  

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of injustice.  While the RE code assigned to the applicant at the time of his separation was technically correct and in accordance with the applicable instructions, we believe it would be an injustice for him to continue to suffer its effects in the way of enlistment opportunities in the armed forces.  In view of the totality of the circumstances present in this case and in light of the AFDRB’s decision to change the narrative reason for separation and upgrade his discharge to honorable, we believe that he should be given the opportunity to apply for enlistment. Whether or not he is successful will depend on the needs of the service and our recommendation in no way guarantees that he will be allowed to return to any branch of the service.  Therefore, his RE code of 2C should be changed to 3K, a code that can be waived for prior service enlistment consideration.

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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 26 June 1995, he was issued a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “3K”.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-00732 in Executive Session on 3 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Mar 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Mar 04.

AFBCMR BC-2004-00732

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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 26 June 1995,  he was issued a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “3K”.