RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01328
            INDEX CODE:  100, 110

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  be  changed  from   a   2B
(Misconduct - Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature) to  a  1
and that his general, under honorable conditions discharge, be changed
to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant makes no contentions on his application.  He states that  he
is trying to pursue a career in the Naval Reserve.

In support of his  appeal,  applicant  provides  numerous  letters  of
appreciation,  certificates  of  training,  and  other   documentation
relating to his appeal.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF)  on  4 Dec  80
for a period of 4 years in the grade of airman basic.

Applicant’s Airman Performance Reports (APRs) reflected ratings of  8,
8, and 7, respectively.

On 21 Sep 81, applicant received a Letter of Admonishment for  failure
to meet a  scheduled  dental  appointment  on  21 Aug  81.   Applicant
acknowledged receipt  and  understanding  by  signing  the  Letter  of
Admonishment.

On 27 Nov 81, applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) after his
commander received notification that applicant was  issued  a  traffic
citation on 22 Nov 81 for breaking  traction,  excessive  speed  (drag
racing), and reckless operation of a vehicle (applicant currently  had
6 traffic points assessed).  Applicant acknowledged receipt by signing
the LOR.

On 8 Feb 82, applicant received a LOR after his commander was notified
that applicant was issued a traffic citation on 24 Jan 82 for  driving
42 mph in a 25 mph zone (applicant  currently  had  6  traffic  points
assessed).   Applicant  acknowledged  receipt  and  understanding   by
signing the LOR.

On 28 Jan 82, nonjudicial punishment proceedings were imposed  on  the
applicant in violation  of  Article  108,  Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ), for on or about 22 Jan 82, without  proper  authority,
willfully destroyed, by breaking the windows in Building  6135,  of  a
value of about  $165.20,  military  property  of  the  United  States.
Applicant waived his  right  to  demand  trial  by  court-martial  and
accepted nonjudicial punishment proceedings  under  Article 15,  UCMJ.
He made an oral presentation  before  the  commander  and  attached  a
written presentation.   For  the  above  offense,  the  applicant  was
reduced from the grade of airman first class to the  grade  of  airman
and ordered to perform 21 days of extra  duty.   The  portion  of  the
punishment that provided for the reduction to the grade of airman  was
suspended until 17 Jun 82, at which time, unless  sooner  vacated,  it
would be remitted without further action.  Applicant did not appeal.

On 6 Jul 82, nonjudicial punishment proceedings were  imposed  on  the
applicant in violation of Article 108, UCMJ, for on  or  about  30 Jun
82, without proper authority, willfully damaged, by striking with  his
fist,  a  barracks  room  door,  a  value  of  about  $200.    Further
investigation disclosed that applicant did, on  or  about  30 Jun  82,
participated in a breach of the peace by wrongfully engaging in a fist
fight with two airmen in violation of Article 116,  UCMJ.   He  waived
his right to demand trial by court-martial  and  accepted  nonjudicial
punishment proceedings under  Article  15,  UCMJ.   He  made  an  oral
presentation before the commander and a written presentation.  For the
foregoing offenses, he was reduced from  the  grade  of  airman  first
class to the grade of airman and ordered to forfeit $150 pay  a  month
for two  months.   An  unsuspended  reduction  was  imposed  upon  the
applicant because of the serious nature of the offense.  Applicant did
not appeal.

On 19 Jul 82, applicant was notified by his commander that involuntary
discharge action had been  initiated  against  him  for  his  frequent
involvement of a discreditable nature with military authorities.   The
commander indicated that his reasons for this action were that  during
the period 21 Sep 81 through 15 Jul  82,  applicant  had  received  an
Article 15 for Breach of Peace, a second Article 15 for Destruction of
U.S. Government Property, a LOR for traffic citation,  an  LOR  for  a
second traffic citation, and a letter of  admonishment  for  a  broken
dental appointment.  The applicant was advised that he had a right  to
consult legal counsel.  After consulting an appointed  military  legal
counsel, he met with the appointed evaluation officer.  The evaluation
officer reported that the applicant, due to his misconduct, should  be
discharged from the Air Force and furnished a general discharge.   The
case was reviewed by the base legal office and was found to be legally
sufficient  to  support  discharge.   On  11 Aug  82,  the   discharge
authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed  that
the applicant be furnished a  general  discharge  certificate  without
probation and rehabilitation.

On 13 Aug 82, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM
39-12 (Misconduct - Frequent Involvement of  a  Discreditable  Nature)
with a general, under honorable conditions discharge in the  grade  of
airman.  He was credited with 2 years and 15 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau  of  Investigation
(FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia,  provided  an  investigation  report
which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel  Management  Specialist,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
this  application  and  indicated  that  there  are   no   errors   or
irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant.   The  discharge
complied with directives in effect at the time  and  records  indicate
his military service was reviewed and appropriate  action  was  taken.
DPPRS recommends denial of applicant’s request to upgrade discharge.

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

The Special Programs & BCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES, also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the RE code “2B” is correct.  The  type
of discharge drove assignment of the RE code.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated that, while
in the Air Force, he had frequent problems with the people who  shared
his barracks.  On many occasions, he would return to the barracks only
to find his roommates intoxicated and engaging in such  activities  as
urinating on furniture, throwing his gear around, and being  loud  and
obnoxious.  His roommates were senior to him and therefore used  their
rank to intimidate him.  He appealed to them but to no avail and  went
to his chain of command and was told that these individuals  would  be
kicked out soon and to just tough it out.  Time passed and things grew
worse.  He finally attempted to  confront  these  individuals  and  it
escalated into a fist fight.  He tried to reason with these people and
tried to leave the barracks but then he had to defend himself.  On two
separate occasions he was given an Article 15 which were the result of
conflicts with  his  roommates.   At  the  second  Article 15  he  was
ultimately given the choice to either stay in the Air Force and accept
a reduction in grade to airman and have a blemish  on  his  record  or
accept a discharge.  At that point, he had enough  with  the  problems
that  remained  uncorrected  in  his  barracks  so  he  accepted   the
discharge.  He felt at the time that  he  used  all  tools  that  were
available for rectifying problems such as he had.

Applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice warranting an upgrade  of
applicant’s discharge.  It appears that from 21 Sep 81  to  6 Jul  82,
after receiving punishments  from  Article  15  to  LORs,  applicant’s
recurring misconduct still continued.  It appears that he was provided
with every opportunity available but failed to comply with  Air  Force
regulations.  The fact remains that the applicant engaged  in  serious
misconduct while he was in the Air Force.  In view of the above and in
the absence of substantial evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  conclude,
therefore,  that   the   discharge   proceedings   were   proper   and
characterization of the discharge  was  appropriate  to  the  existing
circumstances.

4.    Notwithstanding the above, it appears that  as  the  record  now
stands, the applicant is not eligible to apply for enlistment  in  the
Naval Reserves.  After reviewing the  statements  and  accomplishments
pertaining to his post-service conduct, we believe his RE code  should
be changed to “RE 4E“ in order that he may apply for enlistment in the
Armed Services.  The applicant should be  aware,  however,  that  this
recommendation in no way establishes an entitlement to enlist; it only
makes him eligible to apply.   Whether  or  not  he  is  selected  for
enlistment will be  based  on  the  needs  of  the  service  to  which
application is made.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his RE  code,  issued
in conjunction with his general, under honorable conditions, discharge
on 13 Aug 82, was RE 4E.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 4 March 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
              Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
              Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  FBI Report, dated 17 Sep 98, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Jun 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 29 Jun 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.
     Exhibit G.  Letter fr applicant, dated 26 Mar 98, w/atchs.




                                   DOUGLAS J. HEADY
                                   Panel Chair


INDEX CODE:  100, 110

AFBCMR 98-01328




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat  116),  it  is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air
Force  relating  to,  be  corrected  to  show  that  his  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code, issued in conjunction with his  general,  under
honorable conditions, discharge on 13 August 1982, was RE 4E.







                                                            JOE     G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                           Air   Force
Review Boards Agency