RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01722
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXX
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation (Misconduct) and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow him to attend school and use his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation and RE code he received is preventing him from using his MGIB.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 November 2002 in the grade of airman basic.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 24 January 2003.  

On 26 April 2005, the applicant was notified by his commander of her intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49 (Misconduct-Minor Disciplinary Infractions).  The specific reasons for this action were numerous Letters of Counseling (LOCs) for failure to go, for failing to attend a Fitness Assessment Monitor Class and failure to accomplish the required computer based training as he was instructed to do, and for leaving his place of duty after being told to stand by prior to being released for the duty day.  He also received Letters of Reprimand (LOR) for driving a vehicle between the wing tips of two aircrafts and speeding and for driving his vehicle on the grass area at his dormitory.  

He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit statements on his own behalf.  In a legal review of the case file, the deputy staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge.  

On 5 May 2005, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  Applicant was discharged on 6 May 2005.  He served 2 years, 5 months and 12 days on active duty.

On 17 March 2008, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and approved the applicant’s request that his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge; however, denied his request to change his RE code and narrative reason for separation (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the 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 in the discharge processing warranting a change to his separation code or narrative reason for separation.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states in March 2008 his general (under honorable conditions) discharge was upgraded to an honorable discharge; however, his separation code remained the same preventing him from using his MGIB that he paid for to advance his education, live a better life and the ability to reenter the service.  The RE code and narrative reason for separation he received are detrimental to his future.  While in the Air Force his goals were to finish training and upgrade to a five skill level in order to advance in his career and go to school using his MGIB.  Life after separation was very difficult because his benefits were taken away.  After moving back to Massachusetts he was hired at Ocean Spray, became a Sunday school teacher and continued to work on rebuilding what was lost and use his benefits to advance both in life and education.  He has continued to work with several charities to help make a difference in the lives of children.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the narrative reason for separation and reentry code assigned were proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of either an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2008-01722 in Executive Session on 24 September 2008, 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 28 April 2008, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Record.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 17 July 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 and 2 August 2008.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 September 2008, w/atch.

			XXXXXXXXXX
			Panel Chair