RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01297
		INDEX CODE:  100.00

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 OCT 2008

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility code of 2B (involuntarily separated with a general or under other than honorable condition (UOTHC) discharge) be changed to a code which will enable him to enlist in the United States Army.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not feel the minor infractions he committed should keep him from enlisting in the Army, if they are willing to take him.  He was young and made some mistakes, however, he still would like to serve his country.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 29 Aug 86.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Dec 83, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years.  He was progressively promoted to the rank of senior airman with a date of rank of 20 May 86.  

On 18 Aug 86, applicant’s squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for a Pattern of Misconduct.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were:

On or about (o/a) 1 Aug 84 to o/a 31 Dec 84, applicant used an aerosol spray can and a match as a torch device in a dormitory hallway.  For this misconduct, he received an Article 15.

O/a 17 Apr 85, applicant was drunk and disorderly at the non-commissioned officer (NCO) club.  For this offense, he received a Letter of Reprimand.  

On 9 Nov 85, applicant was involved in a verbal and physical dispute with another flight member.  For this offense, he received a letter of counseling.

On 11 Jul 86, applicant was insubordinate toward a superior NCO.  For this offense, he received a letter of reprimand.

On 31 Jul 86, applicant failed to obey a lawful order.  For this misconduct, he received a letter of reprimand and a UIF entry.

On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel, waived his rights to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 26 Aug 86, the staff judge advocate found the case to be legally sufficient to support discharge action and recommended the applicant be given a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  On 27 Aug 86, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed he be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  Probation and Rehabilitation were considered, but found not suitable.

On 29 Aug 86, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, with a reason of misconduct - pattern of minor disciplinary infractions, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  He was credited with 2 years, 8 months and 29 days of active duty service during this period.

On 23 Feb 89, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable and recommended he contact a recruiter to determine if a waiver would be considered.  If he believes his RE code is in error, to submit a DD Form 149, to the AFBCMR.  However, they did find based upon the record, applicant’s testimony, evidence provided by the applicant, that his reason for discharge was inequitable and directed his reason for separation be changed to “Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions.”  They further concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B).  

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred during the discharge process.  He provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service or his reenlistment eligibility code.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS’s 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 11 May 07 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that he 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 the circumstances of their separation.  Applicant’s RE code of 2C accurately reflects that he was involuntarily separated with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service and given the circumstances surrounding his separation, we believe the RE code issued was in accordance with the governing regulations.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, 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 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-2007-01297 in Executive Session on 11 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 07, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 May 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 07.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair