RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00249
                 INDEX CODE:  100

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “RE-2C” be corrected.

2.  His separation code of “JKN” be corrected.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he was processed for discharge, he was told there was not  enough
evidence against him to discharge without his consent.  He requested a
new assignment or to be retrained.  He was told  that  the  Air  Force
would not pay for either and that his only option was to  go  back  to
his old unit where it would be “really  hard”  or,  accept  discharge.
Applicant contends that he was told that the  discharge  would  be  an
“Early Out” or Reduction In Force (RIF) that would  allow  him  to  be
discharged early and still receive  his  benefits.   He  was  given  a
faulty  RE  code  that  prevents  him  from  receiving  any  benefits,
including the G.I. Bill.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  16  June  1989  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

While  serving  in  the  grade  of  airman  first  class,  applicant’s
commander  notified  him  that   he   (commander)   was   recommending
applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph  5-
46 for minor disciplinary infractions.   An  honorable  discharge  was
recommended.  The reasons for recommending the discharge  were:   (a).
Applicant failed to comply with Keesler Air Force  Base  (AFB)  safety
rules by riding his bicycle after dark  without  a  front  light,  for
which he was counseled on 18 January 1990.  (b).  He  failed  to  have
his dormitory room in inspection order, for which he  was  reprimanded
on 7 July 1990.  (c).  Applicant had a bounced check for $15.00 at the
Keesler AFB Main Exchange, for which he was verbally counseled  on  24
July 1990.  (d).  He was observed making a motion as  if  to  grab  or
pinch  a  female  lieutenant  on  the  buttocks,  for  which  he   was
reprimanded on 18 July 1990.  (e).  He failed to adhere  to  the  Data
Processing  Center’s  standards  of  printing  products,  in  that  he
misprinted all bi-weekly military checks which had to be destroyed and
a new batch reprinted, for which  he  was  administered  a  Letter  of
Admonishment on 25 Jul 1990.   (f).   He  received  three  consecutive
traffic violations on 3,  16,  and  19 October  1990,  for  which  his
driving privileges were suspended for 14 days.   (g).   He  failed  to
report for work on time, sleeping on duty,  and  disrespect  toward  a
Noncommissioned Officer  (NCO),  for  which  he  was  counseled  on  7
November 1990.

Applicant acknowledged  receipt  of  the  Letter  of  Notification  on
19 December 1990.  He did consult military legal counsel and submitted
a statement in his own behalf.

The Acting Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the recommendation  for
discharge and found no errors or irregularities which affect the legal
sufficiency  of  the  case.   The  SJA  recommended  approval  of  the
discharge  for  minor  disciplinary  infractions  with  an   honorable
characterization without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was honorably discharged  on  31  December  1990  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct – Pattern  of  Minor  Disciplinary
Infractions).  He served 1 year, 6 months and 16 days of  active  duty
with no time lost.  An RE code 2C was issued in conjunction  with  the
honorable discharge and a Separation Program Designator (SPD) of  JKN.


_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRS,  states
that the applicant’s case has been reviewed for separation  processing
and there are no errors or irregularities causing an injustice to  the
applicant.  The discharge complies with directives in  effect  at  the
time of his discharge.   The  records  indicate  applicant’s  military
service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.  Applicant  did
not identify any specific  errors  in  the  discharge  processing  nor
provide facts, which warrant a change in the reason for the  discharge
he received.  They recommend the application be denied.

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

The Special Programs and BCMR Manager, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, states that the
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code  “2C”  is  correct.   The  type  of
discharge drove assignment of the RE code.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
10 May 1999.  Applicant submitted a response and  states  that  he  is
requesting the RE code and separation code be corrected, but  not  for
the purpose of reenlisting in the Air Force.  His primary  purpose  is
to obtain the G.I. Bill for which he paid $1200 over a one-year period
while on active duty.  Applicant also responds to the offenses  listed
in the discharge action and states that he does not believe  that  any
of the listed actions were worthy of discharge.

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is attached at Exhibit  F.


_________________________________________________________________

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 reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2C”  or  the
separation code of “JKN” should be changed.  His contentions are  duly
noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force.  In this respect, although applicant contends that he was  told
his discharge would be an Early Out or  Reduction-In-Force  discharge,
thereby making him eligible for benefits, he provides no documentation
to substantiate his assertion.  Further, although he asserts that  his
RE code of “2C” renders him ineligible for educational benefits  under
the G.I. Bill, it appears that his ineligibility simply stems from the
fact that he did not complete the required number of years of  service
to be eligible for benefits.  With respect to  the  RE  code  that  he
received, we note that the Secretary of the Air  Force  has  statutory
authority  to  promulgate  rules   and   regulations   governing   the
administration of the Air Force.  In the exercise of  that  authority,
he has determined that members separated from the Air Force  would  be
furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service  and
the circumstances of their separation.  At the  time  an  RE  code  is
assigned, it reflects the Air Force position regarding whether or  not
or under what  circumstances  the  individual  should  be  allowed  to
reenlist.  There has been no showing that the  Secretary  abused  this
discretionary authority or that the particular RE  code  assigned  was
contrary to the prevailing directive.  In our opinion, considering the
applicant’s numerous disciplinary infractions, it was the  commander’s
prerogative  to  recommend  the  discharge  for  misconduct  and   its
resultant RE code.  We also note that the separation code of “JKN”  is
not  in  error  as  it  corresponds  with  the  narrative  reason  for
separation which was “Misconduct.”  Therefore,  we  are  in  agreement
with the recommendations of the Air Force and  adopt  their  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Therefore, we find  no  compelling  basis  upon  which  to
recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient  to  give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a  hearing  is  not
favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 4 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603.

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
                  Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Apr 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 22 Apr 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 May 99.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 20 Aug 99, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair