RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00327
				INDEX CODE:  107.00
				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to a more favorable code to allow him to enlist in the Air Force Reserves.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge was upgraded to a under honorable conditions (general) discharge his RE code was not changed.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 July 1977 for a period of six years as an airman basic.

The applicant underwent a random urinalysis on 7 February 1991 and tested positive for marijuana.  

On 9 April 1991, the applicant was charged in violation of Article 112a, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UMCJ) for wrongful use of marijuana on or about 6 January 1991 and on or about 5 February 1991.  On 25 April 1991, the applicant’s case was referred to a general court-martial.  

On 1 May 1991, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

A legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate (SJA) recommended the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial be approved and he be discharged with an UOTHC discharge.

On 10 May 1991, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

On 24 May 1991, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 4, (request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial), and was issued an under other than honorable discharge with an RE code of 2B which denotes the servicemember was involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10, with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He served 13 years, 10 months and 17 days of active service.

After reviewing the applicable instruction, AFI 36-2606, it appears the RE code is correct.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states based upon the documentation in the applicant's records, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  

The AFDRB previously reviewed all the evidence of record and determined the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and he was provided full administrative due process.  The AFDRB further determined the applicant’s overall quality of service was more accurately reflected by a under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any evidence to identify any errors or injustices that may have occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Nor did he provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his discharge or change his RE code.  Based on the evidence provided DPPRS recommends the requested relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 March 2004, 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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  When the applicant was discharged he received an RE code of “2B” which indicated the applicant was involuntarily separated with a general or UOTHC discharge.  The applicant’s contends his RE code should have been upgraded when his discharge was upgraded.  The AFDRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge and determined the discharge should be upgraded based on the applicant’s overall quality of service, however, the discharge upgrade still fell under the purview of the RE code “2B”.  Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 Docket Number BC-2004-00327 in Executive Session on 12 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Mar 04.

                                   Panel Chair