RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00598
		INDEX CODE:  110.00, 112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2J to 2B and his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was based on the charge that he shoplifted merchandise from the Shoppette on base that amounted to $109.00.  He received an Article 15 in which his punishment was 45 days of extra duty and reduction in rank to E-2.  Until the time of his discharge, he was considered to be an honorable, dependable, and hard-working airman.  After his discharge, he moved on in life and has been serving honorably in the Army National Guard, has been employed by a company that builds military trainer aircraft, has attended a county college, and has served as the youth pastor at his church.  Upgrading his discharge to honorable will reflect his true character of service and the person he is.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, an excerpt of AFI 36-2606, and a copy of his DD Form 214.  Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 July 1997.  Prior to the events under review, he was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class and received one Enlisted Performance Report, closing 8 March 1999, in which the promotion recommendation was “4.”

On 17 February 2000, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending discharge from the Air Force for commission of a serious offense.  Basis for the action was that on 23 October 1999, applicant stole merchandise of a value of more than $100, the property of the Army Air Force Exchange Service on McConnell AFB, KS; and wrongful possession of an alcoholic beverage while under the age of 21, in violation of Kansas Statutes Annotated, assimilated into Federal law by 19 U.S.C., Section 13.  As a result, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, with punishment consisting of being reduced in grade to airman and given 45 days extra duty.  Applicant was not entitled to a Board hearing.  The commander did not recommend probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  Applicant consulted with counsel and submitted statements in his behalf.  The discharge case was reviewed by the base legal office and found to be legally sufficient to support the discharge.  On 2 March 2000, the Discharge Authority approved his separation and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman, was separated from the Air Force on 7 March 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (commission of a serious offense), and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He was assigned a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2J.  He served 2 years, 7 months, and 29 days of total active service.

While reviewing the applicant’s records, it was discovered that there was an error on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  A DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214 (dated 17 April 2003), has been completed to correct item 27 of the DD Form 214 to reflect 2B and forwarded to the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of discharge to honorable on 4 April 2001.  Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 25 April 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant’s discharge was contrary to the provisions of the regulation under which it was effected.  The applicant believes the characterization of service he received was excessively harsh.  Considering the seriousness of the infraction he committed, we believe that it was not unjust that his service was characterized as “under honorable conditions.”  From his statement, it appears that the applicant has adjusted well to civilian life since his separation.  We commend him for his accomplishments since separation and encourage him to continue in efforts in this regard.  However, considering the fact that it has been only a little more than three years since his separation, and because, generally, we have traditionally exercised clemency in the form of upgrading a discharge or changing an RE code only upon the submission of evidence of a successful post-service adjustment over an extended period of time, we are not inclined to favorably consider the applicant’s request in regard to clemency at this time.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request regarding a change in the characterization of his discharge is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 25 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with Docket No. BC-2003-00598:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Mar 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.

					
					Panel Chair