RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00933
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
	 	COUNSEL: NONE 

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to a “1” category and his narrative reason for separation be changed to allow him to join the Air Force Reserves.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The punishment he received for driving while intoxicated (DWI) was too harsh based on his excellent performance of service and the marginal level of alcohol in his blood.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, Letter and Record of Proceedings, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, AF Form 909, Airman Performance Report, College Transcript, and a Letter of Recommendation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 April 1979.  On 9 May 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions.  The basis for the action was on 10 April 1984, he received an Article 15 for driving a car while drunk, on 12 November 1983, he was counseled for being late for duty, on 17 October 1983, he received an Article 15 for dereliction in performance of duties, on 19 June 1983, he was counseled for dereliction in performance of duties, on 17 October 1982, he was counseled for being late for duty, on 27 February 1982, he was counseled for being late for duty, on 5 July 1981, he received an Article 15 for leaving his appointed place of duty and being drunk on duty, and on 25 Aril 1980, he received an Article 15 for being disrespectful in language to a superior noncommissioned officer.  He was advised of his rights in this matter.  He acknowledged his right to consult counsel, and after consulting with counsel elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient.  The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed that applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  On 21 June 1984, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (misconduct-pattern of minor disciplinary infractions), with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He received an RE code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service”.  He served 5 years, 2 months and 20 days total active service.

On 29 April 1985, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) requesting his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  The DRB denied his request on the grounds of finding no error or inequity to warrant a change in his discharge.  (Exhibit B)

On 12 November 1999, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), requesting the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, imposed on 1 May 1984, be removed from his records and his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.  On 4 August 2000, the AFBCMR reviewed the evidence of record and based on clemency directed the applicant’s records be changed to show he received an honorable discharge.  However, the Board denied his request to set aside the Article 15, choosing not to disturb the discretionary judgments of the commanding officer, absent a strong showing of abuse of that authority.  (Exhibit C)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  Based upon the documentation in master personnel record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  His separation was involuntary and he has provided no facts warranting a change to his reenlistment eligibility code or narrative reason for separation.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 April 04, 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 a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief is warranted.  At the time the member was separated from the Air Force, he was furnished an RE code and narrative reason for separation predicated upon the quality of her service and the circumstances of her separation.  The assigned code reflects the Air Force's position regarding whether or not, or under what circumstances, he should be allowed to reenlist.  The evidence of record supports the stated reasons for the applicant's separation from the Air Force and we are not persuaded that the assigned RE code is in error or unjust.  In the absence of such evidence we find no basis for an upgrade of the RE code or a change in the narrative reason for separation.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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-2004-00933 in Executive Session on 15 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 04, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	AFBCMR Case 99-02995, dated 4 Aug 00, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Apr 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 04.