RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00320
                 INDEX CODE:  100

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from RE 2B to  RE-1,
so that he may reenlist in the Regular Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was very young when he signed into the Delayed Entry  Program.   At
that time he did not weigh the  situation  evenly  enough.   Applicant
states that he was a very immature young man  and  constantly  battled
with his area supervisor, which was an immature and unprofessional act
on his (applicant’s) part.  He states that he has  since  matured  and
now understands the responsibility.

In support of  his  request,  applicant  submits  several  letters  of
recommendation in support of his request.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared  by
the appropriate Air Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  (OPR).
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.

Applicant was discharged on 17 January 1992 under  the  provisions  of
AFR 39-10 (Misconduct-Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions)  with
a general discharge.  He served 1 year, 6 months and 6 days of  active
duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, Separations  Branch,  HQ
AFPC/DPPRS,  states  that  during  the  period  24  February  1991  to
16 October 1991, applicant received four (4) Letters of Reprimand  and
four(4)  Letters   of   Counseling   for   disciplinary   infractions.
[Applicant also received an Article 15 on 10 January 1992 for  failing
to go to his appointed place of duty on or about 28 December 1991].

The applicant was afforded military counsel and elected not to  submit
a statement in his own behalf.  The case  was  reviewed  by  the  base
legal office and found to be legally sufficient to support  discharge.
The discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge with
a general discharge.

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.  Applicant did not identify any specific errors
in the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant  a  change
in the  reason  for  discharge  he  received.   Recommend  applicant’s
request 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
RE Code “2B” 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
5 April 1999 for review and response.  Applicant submitted a  response
and states, in summary, that at no time  did  his  squadron  commander
state that the discharge was  involuntary  and  he  (applicant)  never
remembers being offered any form of legal council.

A copy of 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice  warranting  partial  relief.
Applicant contends that he was very immature and young and  constantly
battled  with  his  area  supervisor,  which  was  an   immature   and
unprofessional act on his part.  He also contends that at no time  did
his squadron commander state that the discharge was involuntary and he
(applicant) never remembers being offered any form of  legal  counsel.
However, we do note that the applicant did receive notification of his
discharge and  signed  a  statement  indicating  that  military  legal
counsel was made available to him and that he had consulted counsel.

4.  We do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were
violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which he
was entitled.   Considered  alone,  we  conclude  that  the  discharge
proceedings were proper and the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  of
“2B”  was  appropriate  to  the  existing   circumstances.    However,
consideration of this  Board  is  not  limited  to  the  events  which
precipitated  the  discharge  and  ensuing  RE  code.    We   have   a
Congressional mandate which permits consideration  of  other  factors.
In this  instance  we  note  that  the  applicant  committed  numerous
offenses that we feel were somewhat minor in  nature.   The  applicant
was  young  and  immature  and  it  appears  that  he   has   accepted
responsibility  for  his  actions.   In  view  of  this,  we   believe
applicant’s existing RE code is somewhat harsh  because  it  does  not
allow him to pursue his  apparent  desire  to  continue  his  military
career.  Although we do not believe that he should receive an RE  Code
“1” and be returned to his former Air Force Specialty Code  (AFSC)  of
Security Specialist as he is requesting, we do believe that he  should
be afforded the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist in the Air
Force or another branch of the armed services.  Whether or not  he  is
successful will depend on the needs of the particular service and  our
recommendation in no way guarantees that he will be allowed to  return
to the Air Force or any  branch  of  the  service.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, we  recommend  his  records  be  corrected  to  the  extent
indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected  to  show  that  the  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code issued in conjunction  with  his  general  under
honorable conditions discharge on 17 January 1992, was RE-3K.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 26 October 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
              Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   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 16 Mar 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 19 Mar 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Apr 99.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 6 Apr 99, w/atch.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair


INDEX CODE:  100

AFBCMR 99-00320




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   the
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  issued  in  conjunction  with  his
general under honorable conditions discharge on 17 January  1992,  was
RE-3K.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency