RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00557
            INDEX CODE:  100.06

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2c to 1c.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Everyone makes mistakes.  He believes that the RE code of 2c  was  too
strict.  He now knows that his actions were immature.   He  is  asking
that his RE code be changed so that he can fulfill his contract.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  congressional
correspondence, supportive statements, and extracts from his  military
personnel records.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25  Nov  97  for  a
period of 4 years in the grade of airman basic.

On 30 Apr 98, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending that the applicant be discharged for failure to adapt  to
the military environment.  The reason for the action was that upon his
initial inprocessing, on 8 Apr 98, the applicant divulged to the First
Sergeant that he no longer had the desire to remain in the  Air  Force
in any capacity.  When questioned  by  the  commander  concerning  his
comments, the applicant related  that  he  had  felt  that  way  since
entering basic training but was convinced by his  father  to  try  and
adjust to military life.  The applicant also stated that he could  not
adjust to the irregular duty  hours  and  the  requirement  to  deploy
and/or change his duty station at the whim of the Air Force.  Although
he agreed to reconsider his request and give the Air Force a  try,  on
13 Apr 98, during part of his  inprocessing,  the  applicant  informed
SSgt C--- and TSgt C--- that he  could  no  longer  go  on  and  still
desired to be separated from the military.  In view of the applicant’s
unwillingness to adapt to  the  military  environment,  the  commander
believed that it was in the best interest of the  Air  Force  and  the
unit to recommend an entry level separation  due  to  the  applicant’s
convictions.  The applicant was advised of his rights in  the  matter.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and submitted a
statement in his own behalf.

On 8 May 98,  the  Office  of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the
discharge case file to be legally sufficient and recommended that  the
discharge authority approve an entry level separation.

On 8 May 98, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and
directed that the applicant be furnished an entry level separation.

On 12 May 98, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI
36-3208 (Entry Level Performance and  Conduct)  with  an  entry  level
separation.  He was assigned an RE code of 2C (involuntarily separated
with an entry level separation).  He had served 5 months and 18 days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Branch,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  According to DPPRS, the  case  was  reviewed  for
separation processing and  there  were  no  errors  or  irregularities
causing an injustice to the applicant.  The  discharge  complied  with
directives in effect at  the  time  of  his  discharge.   The  records
indicated that the  applicant’s  military  service  was  reviewed  and
appropriate action was taken.  DPPRS indicated that the applicant  did
not identify any specific  errors  in  the  discharge  processing  nor
provide facts warranting a change in the reason for his discharge.

A complete copy of the DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The  Special  Actions  Section,  AFPC/DPPAES,  indicated   that   they
conducted a review of the applicant’s case file  and  determined  that
the RE code of 2C was correct (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated that he had no derogatory comments in 16 weeks  of
training.  He just made an immature decision that harmed  no  one  but
himself.  As a result, he believes that he is being  punished  by  not
ever being allowed to enlist in the Air Force because of a mistake  he
made as a young man.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  The evidence of  record
reflects  that  the  applicant  received  an  entry  level  separation
resulting from his failure to adapt to the military  environment.   In
this respect, the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  has  the  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
circumstances  of   their   separation.    We   note   the   favorable
documentation provided in the applicant's behalf and we do not find it
provides a sufficient basis  on  which  to  change  an  RE  code  that
accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation.  No  evidence
has been presented which shows to our  satisfaction  that  he  is  now
capable of adapting to the highly regimented military environment.  In
view of the above, and in the absence of sufficient evidence that  the
applicant's substantial rights were violated, the information used  as
a basis for his separation was erroneous, or that the discharge action
was an abuse of discretionary authority, we find no  compelling  basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 16 Nov 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                       Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
                       Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated. 5 Apr 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Jun 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 8 Jul 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Aug 99.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 24 Aug 99.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair