RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03048
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reentry (RE) code 2B, which denotes "approved involuntary separation with less than honorable discharge," be changed to honorable.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was discharged from the Air Force in 1996 and received RE code 2B.  On 31 Dec 2007, he attempted to join the Air National Guard.  However, he was 
informed his RE code din not allow him to.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of photographs, citations, certificates, Recommendation for Missouri National Guard Commendation 
Medal, NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service; Discharge Order 007-185 and NGB Form 55, Army National Guard Honorable Discharge 
Certificate.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 Feb 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 

On 26 Jun 1996, his commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen.  The specific reasons for his action were the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties and had numerous incidents of “failure to go.”

On 26 Jun 1996, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and on 9 Jul 1996, he submitted statements in his own behalf.

On 18 Jul 1996, the discharge authority determined the applicant 
lacked potential for continued military service and would be 
discharged with a general discharge for minor disciplinary 
infractions.  Additionally, the discharge authority stated that 
despite counseling and other rehabilitative efforts, the 
applicant has demonstrated a lack of desire and motivation to 
comply with Air Force rules and regulations. Therefore, 
probation and rehabilitation was denied.

On 19 Aug 1996, he was discharged from the Air Force with a 
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served a 
total of 1 year, 5 months and 12 days of active duty.

On 14 Mar 2014, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete 
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing.  Based on 
the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the 
commander's discretionary authority.  The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary
to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of justice, we considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for 
us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which he was 
discharged  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
________________________________________________________________

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 24 Apr 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

       , Chair
       , Member
       , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2013-03048:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, undated, w/atch.
1 2