RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01925
INDEX CODE:  112.10
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B (involuntarily discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge) to enable him to reenter the military.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not deny his actions leading to his discharge, nor does he claim that there is an error or injustice on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty.  The military is the only place he feels he belongs and he would like another chance.  Since his discharge, he has matured and learned how he should act and treat others.  

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal statement and a copy of his DD Form 214.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 June 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 18 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  He was trained as a Security Forces Apprentice and was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class.  He received one enlisted performance report (EPR) for the period ending 20 February 2002, in which the promotion recommendation was “2.”

On 9 January 2001, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to get permission to go direct on a closed net.  On 10 January 2001, he received a LOC for failure to maintain a professional stature by handling a weapon he was ordered not to handle and spraying a senior ranking member with all purpose cleaner.  On 21 February 2001, a memorandum for record (MFR) was placed in the applicant’s file for abusing his authority as a Security Forces patrolman.  On 27 September 2001, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and his Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established, for using provoking speech and abusing his authority as a Security Forces member towards a civilian employee.  On 27 November 2001, the applicant received Article 15 punishment resulting in his reduction to the grade of airman (suspended), forfeiture of $150 pay per month for two months, 23 days extra duty, and a reprimand, for unlawfully striking another airman repeatedly on his face with his fist.  On 26 December 2001, he received an LOR for failure to meet dormitory standards during an inspection.  On 27 December 2001, the applicant received a memorandum suspending his base check cashing and Military Star account privileges for failing to make necessary payment on his Military Star Credit account.  On 10 January 2002, he received an LOR for failure to perform his required duties as a Security Forces member by allowing a vendor’s vehicle on base without searching or recording the vehicle in the visitor’s log.  On 8 February 2002, he received a memorandum suspending his Government Travel Card for failure to make payment within 60 days.  On 5 March 2002, the applicant received an LOR for arriving late to work by approximately one hour.  On 22 April 2002, he received an LOC for failure to meet his dormitory inspection standards on two occasions.  On 14 May 2002, the applicant received an LOC for failure to wear the proper belt with his uniform and on one occasion failed to wear a belt at all.  On 7 May 2002, his commander revoked the applicant’s authority to bear arms.  On 8 May 2002, the applicant received an LOC for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, resulting in vacation of his Article 15 Nonjudicial Punishment, reducing him to the grade of airman, with a new date of rank of 27 November 2001.  On 15 June 2002, he received an LOR for failure to report for duty at the prescribed time.  On 17 June 2002, the applicant was counseled for being late for work, using his rotating lights on his patrol car but failing to initiate a stop, resisting to return to his post after his lunch break, and conducting searches of vehicles while talking on his cellular phone.  On 20 June 2002, he received an LOR for having alcoholic beverages in his dorm room while being under the age of 21.  

On 2 July 2002, his commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for general discharge for engaging in a pattern of misconduct, under AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.  On 12 July 2002, after consulting counsel, the applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  On 15 July 2002, his commander signed a recommendation for the applicant’s general discharge based on minor disciplinary infractions, without probation and rehabilitation.  On 26 July 2002, the recommendation was found to be legally sufficient by the Staff Judge Advocate.  On 29 July 2002, the discharge authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50, for engaging in a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant was discharged effective 1 August 2002 with a under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service; separation code JKA (misconduct), and a reentry code of 2B (discharged under general or other than honorable conditions).  He had served 2 years, 1 month and 11 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process.  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 1 July 2004 for review and response 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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The RE code which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust.  The record clearly shows that the applicant experienced problems maintaining acceptable duty performance standards.  In our estimation, based on the evidence of record, the applicant’s separation was in the best interests of the Air Force and the individual.  Furthermore, the applicant has provided no evidence showing that he would now be able to effectively perform his duties in the highly structured military environment.  In view of the foregoing, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request.

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 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 this application in Executive Session on 15 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2004-01925 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 04, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Jun 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.