RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00219
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE)  code  of  2B  be  changed  to  allow  his
enlistment in the Air National Guard.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During his term in  the  Air  Force,  his  ability  to  serve  was  severely
impaired by the alcoholism of his adoptive father.   Applicant  asserts  his
reenlistment code does not correctly characterize his service, and  that  he
was treated very rudely and was ridiculed by his evaluator.

Since his discharge, his conduct has been exceptional.  He  has  volunteered
with such agencies as United Cerebral  Palsy,  MDA,  and  the  American  Red
Cross.  He is a registered donor with the national marrow registry  and  has
served ten years on the state Committee for the Employment of the  Disabled.
 He has operated his own cleaning agency for ten years.

Applicant's  complete  submission,   which   includes   three   letters   of
recommendation, is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 Jun 81 and was  discharged
on 6 Apr 83 under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Paragraph 5-46 (Misconduct  -
Minor Disciplinary Infractions).  He was given  a  general  under  honorable
conditions discharge with an RE-2B (Separated With Other Than  an  Honorable
Discharge).  Applicant served 1 year, 9 months, and 28 days on active duty.

The discharge action was based  on  an  Article  15  for  Larceny,  numerous
Letters of Reprimand (LOR) and  counseling  for  failure  to  maintain  dorm
standards, marginal performance, and failure to pay just debts.

On 10 Mar 83, the applicant received notification from  his  commander  that
he was being recommended for discharge for minor  disciplinary  infractions.
The commander’s recommendation for discharge letter  cited  six  letters  of
counseling and three letters of reprimand.  The  applicant  was  advised  of
his rights in the matter.  On  14  March  1983,  after  consulting  military
legal counsel, the applicant submitted a personal statement  and  supportive
statements for review.  On 31 March 83, the discharge  action  was  reviewed
and found to be legally sufficient by  an  assistant  staff  judge  advocate
assigned to the staff of the discharge  authority.   On  4  April  1983  the
discharge authority  approved  the  recommended  separation.   This  officer
stated probation and rehabilitation had  been  considered  and  disapproved.
On 6 Apr 83, the applicant was discharged.

On 7 Dec 83, applicant  personally  appeared  before  the  Discharge  Review
Board.  The board denied the  applicant’s  request  to  have  his  discharge
upgraded.

On about 26 Jun 1989, the applicant  applied  to  the  AFBCMR  to  have  his
discharge upgraded to honorable, and his narrative reason for  discharge  be
changed to “For the  Convenience  of  the  Government.”    In  addition,  he
requested to be reimbursed 50% of his salary at the grade of  E-1,  for  the
period 7 Apr 83 to 9 Jun 85.  The Board denied his application (Exhibit C).

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAES reviewed the applicant’s case file and stated  the  Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE)  Code  2B,  “Separated  under  AFM  39-12  with  less  than
honorable” is correct (Exhibit D).

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided an undated response  to  the  advisory  opinion.   He
noted the advisory opinion cites the separation authority as AFM  39-12  but
that his DD Form 214 gives the separation authority as AFR 39-10.

Applicant stated the review authority did not address his four points  brief
and that the advisory opinion only contends his discharge  is  correct.   He
believes his RE Code would not withstand a federal court challenge.  He  has
raised significant errors that have not been challenged by the Air Force.

The applicant requests an appearance before the Board.   His  review  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 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.  The reasons for  the  applicant’s
discharge and the corresponding RE code he received are clearly  evident  in
the record.  It appears the applicant was provided every right to  which  he
was entitled under the governing regulation then in effect.  Other than  his
own  assertions,  the  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence  showing   the
contrary.  The  applicant  believes  there  were  mitigating  factors  which
constrained his ability to successfully complete his  enlistment.   But,  we
find nothing in the record before us to suggest that the alleged  alcoholism
of his step-father  and  his  superiors’  animus  were  the  causes  of  his
numerous acts of indiscipline, which commenced shortly after  his  entry  in
the Air Force and increased in severity over  the  period  of  his  service.
The  applicant  asserts  that  his  post-service  accomplishments  and   his
military service warrant an upgrade of his  discharge.   We  disagree.   The
record clearly shows that during his short period of service, the  applicant
committed a number of infractions against the good order and  discipline  of
the service.  While the  applicant’s  achievements  since  leaving  the  Air
Force are commendable, we do not believe they demonstrate he is now able  to
successfully  function  in  a  highly  structured  and  regimented  military
environment.  The applicant is correct in noting the technical error in  the
Air Force’s advisory opinion.  However, this error  has  no  impact  on  the
propriety of his discharge under AFR 39-10 and the RE code he received as  a
consequence of that discharge.  In view of  the  above,  we  are  unable  to
conclude that the applicant’s RE code is erroneous or unjust.   Accordingly,
the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   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 12 June 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member
                 Mr. George Franklin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 99, with attachments.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR 90-00037, dated
                14 Aug 1990.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 Feb 2000.
    Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, undated.




                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair