RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01765

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow his enlistment into the armed forces.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code he received upon his discharge is unfairly preventing him from serving his country.

The discharge he received was not based on any individual action or incident, but rather as a collective whole of his time of service. 

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 7 March 1992.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class.

On 24 May 1993, he received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for unsatisfactory duty performance (i.e., derelict in the performance of his duty by failing to update his training records and the training records of his trainees, failed to maintain proper standards of hygiene, failed to timely complete a copies report, failed to return his supervisor’s phone call, failed to ensure that a Pacer Ware message was distributed, failed to obey a lawful order by authorizing a subordinate to report for duty two hours late, and committed adultery), as evidenced by 5 Letters of Counseling (LOCs), a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), and an Article 15.  .  He received a general discharge on 15 June 1993, under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Unsatisfactory Performance).  He had completed a total of 6 years, 3 months and 10 days and was serving in the grade of airman first class (E-3) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code of “2B”, which defined means "Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant has provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states, in part, that the RE code of “2B” assigned to the applicant is correct.  Waivers of RE codes for enlistment are considered and approved based on the needs of the respective military service and recruiting initiatives at the time of the enlistment inquiry.

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 July 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 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 error or injustice.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction.  It is clear that the decision to separate him was proper based on his situation at the time.  The RE code which was issued at the time of his discharge accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation, i.e., separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge.  Accordingly, we do not find this code to be in error or unjust.  We therefore conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2003-01765 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Jul 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.

                                   Chair