RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  2006-00083
		INDEX CODE:  106.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 July 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment (RE) code be changed. 
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His current mental and physical stability is outstanding.  His ambitions and goals are in line with military standards and he would be a good example for others.  It is his desire to serve in the United States Army and he is fully capable of becoming an outstanding soldier.  During his Air Fore career he made some choices that led him down a dark and lonely road.  Alcohol got the best of him, destroyed his Air Force career and almost ruined his life.  He would like his self-respect and honor restored and that can only come by serving his country in the Army.  

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, character references’, and a copy of his DD Form 214.  The applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 December 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 6 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective and with a date of rank of 18 September 1991.  He received six Enlisted Performance Reports closing 1 December 1988, 3 April 1989, 4 January 1990, 9 August 1990, 9 August 1991 and 9 August 1992, in which the overall ratings were 9, 9, 2, 4, 5, and 3 respectively.

On 6 December 1992, the applicant wrote two checks with insufficient funds.

On 4 December 1992, an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established based on his being arrested by Warrensburg, Missouri Police for brandishing a weapon.

On 4 December 1992, the applicant received three Letters of Reprimand for:  failure to maintain his dormitory room in a sanitary manner; failure to maintain expected standards; and hair was cut in an extreme faddish style.

On 21 November 1992, an incident report was filed concerning the applicant pointing a semi automatic handgun at a patrolman.

On 14 November 1992, an incident report was filed concerning applicant was involved in a fight.

On 22 September 1992, the applicant received a Record of Individual Counseling for failure to obey orders.

On 14 December 1992, the applicant failed the Alcohol Rehabilitation Program and was entered into Track 5 and was recommended for separation.  

On 30 December 1992, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge proceedings against him under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5.32 (Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure).  The applicant was notified of his commander’s recommendation and that a general discharge was being recommended.  He was advised of his rights in the matter.  The applicant waived his right to legal counsel and to submit statements in his behalf.  On 3 January 1993, the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5.32, (Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure), with character of service as general (under honorable conditions).  The applicant was discharged on 14 January 1993 by reason of “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” with a Separation Code of “JPD” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B.”  He had served 5 years, 1 month and 13 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, they conclude that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the applicant did not identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.  The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied.  DPPAE states the applicant’s RE code is correct and should not be changed.  If the applicant wishes to serve in the US Army, the enlisting service may waive any conditions that prohibit his entry.  The DPPAE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s reiterates he wants to be a soldier and would be a valuable asset to the Army.  Applicant’s letter is at Exhibit F. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would warrant a change to his RE code.  Evidence has not been provided that would lead us to believe that the applicant’s discharge in 2003 was erroneous or unjust.  Therefore, we have no basis to conclude that the corresponding RE code that was assigned at the time of his separation does not accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation.  In the absence of evidence to indicate that the information contained in his records is erroneous or that his commander abused his discretionary authority, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 12 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Jan 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.