RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01778
                 INDEX 106.00
                 COUNSEL:  DAV

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His “2B” reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and his general  discharge
be upgraded. [Applicant originally requested only that his RE code  be
upgraded; he added his  request  for  an  upgraded  discharge  in  his
rebuttal.]
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served three of the four years of  his  enlistment  honorably.  His
difficulties were the result of his youth and lack of  discipline  and
focus. He has since changed his outlook  on  life  and  has  become  a
contributing member of  society.   He  provides  character  references
which he believes attest  to  his  new  direction.  He  also  provides
documentation from his military record. He  wants  his  RE  code  [and
discharge] upgraded so that he can join the Rhode Island Air  National
Guard (ANG).

A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered the Regular Air Force on a four-year enlistment term
as an airman basic on 22 June 1979. He was promoted to  senior  airman
on 1 October 1981. During the period in question he was 21  years  old
and serving as a security specialist assigned  to  the  321st  Missile
Security Squadron at Grand Forks  AFB,  ND.  His  performance  reports
reflect the following overall ratings:  9, 9, 9, and 6.

On 12 February 1982, the applicant  received  a  letter  of  reprimand
(LOR) for missing an appointment and having a personal  appearance  in
violation of AFR 35-10. Also,  his  authority  to  bear  firearms  was
withdrawn pending Article 15 action.

For disrespect to a  superior  NCO  and  violation  of  AFR  35-10  on
12 February 1982, nonjudicial punishment was  imposed  on  18 February
1982 by Article 15 action in the form of  forfeiture  of  $150.00  per
month for two months, 14 days of correctional custody and reduction to
the grade of airman first class. However, the punishment of forfeiture
in excess of $50.00 per month for two months, 14 days of  correctional
custody,  and  demotion  was  suspended  until  17 August  1982.   The
applicant had made  an  oral  presentation  and  did  not  appeal  the
punishment.

On  22  February  1982,  the  commander  requested  a  urinalysis   be
administered to the applicant for a possible alcohol-related vehicular
incident on base. However, the records do not contain  the  result  of
the urinalysis. On  the  same  date,  applicant’s  authority  to  bear
firearms was again withdrawn.

As a result of speeding on base  and  nearly  colliding  with  another
vehicle on  22  February  1982,  the  applicant  received  an  LOR  on
26 February. An unfavorable information file (UIF) was established. He
also received six traffic points for reckless driving.

On 27 April 1982, he received a record of counseling for a  non-moving
violation. On 4  June  1982,  applicant  received  another  record  of
counseling, advising him to adhere  to  all  standards  and  that  his
performance would be closely monitored.

On 11 June 1982, the suspension of the punishment imposed  by  Article
15 on 18 February 1982 as provided for reduction to airman first class
and forfeitures  was  vacated.  This  was  due  to  applicant’s  using
disrespectful language to a superior NCO on 1 June 1982.  On  22  June
1982, further punishment was imposed by Article  15  in  the  form  of
reduction to the grade of airman.  The  applicant  had  made  an  oral
presentation and did not appeal the punishment.

On 30 June 1982, the applicant was notified of his commander’s  intent
to initiate discharge action. The commander  subsequently  recommended
the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general  characterization  of
service. The applicant did not submit a rebuttal.

On 2 July 1982, the applicant was permanently  disqualified  from  the
Personnel Reliability Program (PRP).

The case was  found  legally  sufficient  on  21  July  1982,  with  a
recommendation  of  a  general   discharge   without   probation   and
rehabilitation.  The discharge  authority  subsequently  directed  the
applicant’s general discharge  for  unsuitability  (apathy,  defective
attitude).

The applicant was discharged on 23 July 1982 in the  grade  of  airman
with a general characterization and an RE code of “2B” (Separated with
other than an honorable discharge). He had 3 years,  1  month,  and  2
days of active duty.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which  is  attached
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
the appeal and advises there are no errors or  irregularities  causing
an injustice to the applicant. The discharge complied with  directives
in effect at the time, the applicant’s military service  was  reviewed
and appropriate action was taken.  The request is not  timely  and  he
has not identified any specific errors in the discharge processing nor
provide facts which warrant a change in the reason for  the  discharge
he received.  Therefore, denial is recommended.

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

The Special Programs & BCMR Manager, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, advises that  the
RE code is correct because the type of discharge drove its assignment.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant  reviewed  the  evaluations  and  requests  an  upgraded
discharge on the basis of clemency and  his  post-service  activities.
He has maintained consistent employment and developed  a  professional
career. He attends college to obtain a bachelor’s degree in  business.
He asks that his earlier indiscretions be  considered  the  result  of
immaturity and a lack of caring and focus. An upgraded discharge would
facilitate his aspirations of further community involvement.

Counsel also provided a  rebuttal,  indicating  the  applicant  has  a
demonstrable pattern of improvement, becoming a very productive member
of  society.  He  should  receive  sympathetic  consideration  and  an
upgraded discharge.

Applicant’s and counsel’s complete responses are 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. After a thorough  review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded  that  his  discharge  or  RE  code  should   be   upgraded.
Applicant’s contentions and his character references are  duly  noted;
however, they are not sufficiently persuasive to overcome the evidence
of  record.  It  appears  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate
standards in effecting  the  separation,  pertinent  regulations  were
followed and the applicant  was  afforded  all  the  rights  to  which
entitled at the time of discharge. Therefore, we find  no  impropriety
in the discharge proceedings, its characterization, and the  resultant
RE code. The applicant attributes  his  problems  in  the  service  to
immaturity and lack of discipline. He  contends  he  has  changed  his
outlook on life. However, based on  the  FBI  report,  it  appears  he
continued to engage in  minor  misconduct  after  his  discharge.  The
limited post-service information he provides does not, contrary to his
and  counsel’s  assertions,  present  a  comprehensive  picture  of  a
productive member of society. The letters do not begin to cover the 16-
year period since his discharge; in fact, it is  not  even  clear  how
long he has been fully employed. Consequently, we are not compelled to
upgrade the discharge and RE code on the basis of clemency. Since  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice, we recommend this appeal be denied.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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 3 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
                  Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Aug 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 2 Sep 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Sep 98.
   Exhibit G.  Letters, Applicant, dated 29 Sep 98, & Counsel,
                  dated 4 Mar 98.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair