RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01549

							INDEX CODE:  110.00
							COUNSEL: NONE
							HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 NOVEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to reenter military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason he was discharged was not bad enough to bar him from re-entering military service.  He was young and made mistakes.  He is older now and knows he can make them up.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214, a letter from the United States Army Recruiting Office, a letter from the Office of the Vice President, and character reference statements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 18 December 1993 for a period of four years as an airman basic (AB).

On 17 November 1997, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208 for minor disciplinary infractions.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

a.	On 1 October 1996, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for being derelict in the performance of his duties.

	b.	On 4 October 1996, the applicant received an LOC for without authority failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

	c.	On 7 October 1996, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for writing a check with insufficient funds.

	d.	On 13 November 1996, the applicant received an LOR for writing a check with insufficient funds.

	e.	On 8 October 1997, the applicant received an LOR for being derelict in the performance of his duties on 1 August 1997.

	f.	On 8 October 1997, the applicant received an LOR for being derelict in the performance of his duties on 22 September 1997.

g.	On 5 November 1997, the applicant received an LOR for failing to pay his debts.

	h.	On 7 November 1997, the applicant received an LOR for failing to obey a lawful order.

The commander advised the applicant of his rights in this matter.

On 17 November 1997, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting with legal counsel waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated from the AF on 21 November 1997 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct), with a general discharge and a RE code of “2B” which denotes separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He served three years, eight months and four days on active duty.

On 20 July 2005, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his general discharge upgraded to honorable.  The AFDRB considered all the evidence of record and concluded that applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge authority; that the applicant was provided full administrative due process; and that no legal or equitable basis existed for an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the requested relief be denied.  DPPRS states the applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's file, DPPRS believes his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any facts to warrant a change to his discharge or RE code.

AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 June 2007, 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 to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  The applicant is requesting his RE code be changed to allow him to reenter military service.  The applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the assigned RE code was in error or contrary to the prevailing regulation.  It appears that the decision to separate the applicant was proper based on his situation at the time and the RE code which was issued at the time of his discharge was proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives and accurately reflected the circumstances of his separation.  Therefore, in the absence of 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-2007-01549 in Executive Session on 28 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 May 07.
   Exhibit D.  SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jun 07.