RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01780
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The “2B” reenlistment eligibility (RE) code he received be changed to allow him to enlist in the Army.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code is wrong.  He was told when he separated he would be able to join another branch of service.  Some Army servicemembers told him his discharge did not warrant a “2B.”

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 23 April 1997 for a period of four years as an airman basic.

On 24 November 1997, the applicant was notified by his commander he was being recommended for a discharge for minor disciplinary infractions.  The commander cited the following reasons for the discharge:

	a.  On 16 October 1997, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for on diverse occasions in September 1997, violating phase restrictions on opposite sex visitation in the dormitory.  The applicant further abused his position as a Green Rope by using the master key to enter a female’s room for other than official business.

	b.  On 31 October 1997, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for missing physical training formation.

	c.  The applicant received a LOC on 31 October 1997, for twice failing a room inspection.

	d.  On 6 November 1997, the applicant received an Article 15 for failing to report for mandatory formation, violating phase restrictions by wearing civilian clothes, driving a privately owned vehicle (POV), leaving the base, and making a false official statement by altering the CQ log on 24 and 26 October 1997.

	e.  On 12 November 1997, the applicant received an LOR for reporting to Remedial Military Training on 8 November 1997 with alcohol on his breath and missing formation on 11 November 1997.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal counsel and that legal counsel had been obtained to assist him; and to submit statements in his own behalf, or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that he employed various rehabilitation measures in an attempt to rehabilitate the applicant, all of which failed.  He further stated in the midst of nonjudicial punishment the applicant continued to flagrantly disregard rules and regulations.

On 1 December 1997, after consulting with counsel, applicant invoked his right to submit a statement.

On 11 December 1997, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 15 December 1997, in the grade of airman with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, in accordance with AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  He served a total of 7 months and 23 days of active service.  He received an RE code of “2B” which indicates the applicant was involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations of that time.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  He also did not 
provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  Based on the information and evidence provided they recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 June 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 of timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded 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.  Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate the processing of his discharge or the RE code he received were in error or unjust.  Therefore, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01780 in Executive Session on 19 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 25 May 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Available Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Jun 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 04.