RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01323
            INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like to serve in the Air National  Guard  (ANG)  or  an  Air  Force
Reserve (AFRes) component.

In support of his request applicant has provided a letter from  AFPC/DPPRRB,
dated 24 Mar 00, announcing the Air Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
decision to upgrade his discharge characterization to Honorable, change  his
Separation Code to reflect "JFF", and change his RE code from "2B" to  "2C",
a copy  of  the  response  to  his  congressional  inquiry,  and  the  AFDRB
Decisional Rationale brief.

A complete copy of his submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  1  Aug  69  and   was
progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, effective and with  a
date of rank of 1 Aug 77.  The following is a resume of  applicant's  Airman
Performance Reports  (APRs)  subsequent  to  assuming  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant:


PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION


  31 Jul 78      7
  13 Jul 79      9
  31 Jul 80      6
  31 Jul 81      6
  08 Aug 81   Letter of Evaluation (LOE)
  26 Feb 82            8
  12 Nov 82            8
  02 Nov 83            6
  16 Apr 84            6

On 11 Jun 84, applicant was notified by his  commander  that  in  accordance
with AFR 39-10, paragraph  5-47,  he  was  recommending  that  applicant  be
discharged from the Air Force.  The specific  reasons  for  the  commander's
action were; on 6 Feb 84,  applicant  received  Article  15  punishment  for
dereliction in the performance of his  duties.   On  25  Jan  84,  applicant
received a letter of reprimand (LOR) for substandard duty  performance.   On
1 Sep 83, applicant received an LOR for operating a motor vehicle without  a
valid driver’s license and speeding.  On 21 Jul 83,  applicant  received  an
LOR for failure to go.

The applicant was advised of  his  rights  in  the  matter.   The  applicant
acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  and  the  commander  initiated
discharge proceedings against  the  applicant  on  that  same  date.   After
consulting  counsel,  applicant  elected  to  present   his   case   to   an
administrative discharge board.

On 1 and 3  August  1984,  a  Board  of  Officers  was  convened  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10 to consider the case.  After hearing  the  testimony
and reviewing  the  evidence  presented,  the  board  recommended  that  the
applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general  (under  honorable   conditions)
discharge.  In a legal review of the  discharge  case  file,  a  wing  staff
judge advocate,  found  it  legally  sufficient  and  recommended  that  the
applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge.   On  2
Oct 84, the discharge authority directed that the  applicant  be  discharged
with a general discharge without probation  and  rehabilitation.   Applicant
was discharged on 10 Oct 84 after serving 15 years, 2 months,  and  10  days
on active duty.

On 4 Jan 95, applicant requested review of his discharge by  the  Air  Force
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB).  The AFDRB  reviewed  applicant's  discharge
on 22 Sep 95.  The applicant did not appear before  the  board.   The  AFDRB
found there was no legal or  equitable  basis  for  upgrade  of  applicant's
discharge.

On 6 Jul 99, applicant requested additional review of his discharge  by  the
AFDRB.   The  AFDRB,  reviewed  applicant's  discharge,  with   a   personal
appearance, on 20 Jan  00,  and  found  that  the  overall  quality  of  the
applicant's service is more accurately reflected by an  honorable  discharge
and the reason for discharge is more  accurately  described  as  Secretarial
Authority.  Accordingly, applicant's RE code was changed from "2B" to "2C".

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPAE
states that the AFDRB decision to upgrade his discharge  is  not  by  itself
reason to ignore the fact that  he  did  not  meet  quality  standards  (see
Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the Air Force review and provided an account  of  the
events that led to his discharge (see Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  concur  with  the  AFDRB's
earlier decision to upgrade the applicant's  discharge  characterization  to
honorable,  however,  we  find  that  under  the  given  circumstances,  the
applicant's  RE  code  is  appropriate.   We  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility, and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, 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 10 Oct 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
      Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 May 00, w/Atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 11 Jul 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Jul 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jul 00.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair