RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01681

            INDEX NUMBER:  100.03; A67.10


            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B be changed  to  an  RE
code of 1 to allow him to enlist in the Navy and that  his  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an  honorable
discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  separated  for  minor  patterns  of  misconduct  involving
financial difficulties while he was going through a divorce.  He is
currently financially stable and  looking  forward  to  pursuing  a
career by serving his country.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  his
discharge  document,  credit  report,  divorce  decree,  Report  on
Individual Personnel (RIP), dated 19 June 1989,  and  a  number  of
supporting statements.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member who was discharged with a  general
(under honorable conditions)  discharge  on  19  June  1989,  under
the provisions  of   AFR 39-10   (Misconduct - Minor   Disciplinary
Infractions).  He was assigned an  RE  code  of  2B  (Involuntarily
separated under AFR 39-10, with  a  general  or  under  other  than
honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge).   He  served   3 years,
2 months and 11 days on active duty.

The  remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application,
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are  contained  in
the Brief prepared by the Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB)
and the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this  Record
of Proceedings.

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The AFDRB conducted a record review of the  applicant’s  appeal  on
3 August 2000, and denied his request for upgrade of his discharge.
 The AFDRB concluded that the discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation
and was within the discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.   The
applicant was provided full administrative  due  process.   In  the
opinion of the AFDRB, there is  no  legal  or  equitable  basis  to
upgrade the discharge or to change the RE code.  In accordance with
policy, the application was forwarded to  this  Board  for  further
consideration.  The AFDRB decisional document is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR and Special Programs Manager,  AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed  this
application and  stated  that  the  type  of  discharge  drove  the
assignment of the RE code of 2B.  The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant
on  23  August  2000,  for  review  and  response  within  30  days
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response  has  been  received  by
this office.

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.  After  a
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record   and   applicant’s
submission, we are not persuaded that his reenlistment  eligibility
(RE) code should be changed.  With respect to the  RE  code  of  2B
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.

4.  Likewise, we find no impropriety in the characterization of the
applicant's  discharge.   It  appears  that  responsible  officials
applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation,  and  we
do not find persuasive evidence  that  pertinent  regulations  were
violated or that the applicant was not afforded all of  the  rights
to which he was entitled at the time of  discharge.   We  conclude,
therefore,  that  the  discharge  proceedings   were   proper   and
characterization of the discharge was appropriate to  the  existing
circumstances.

5.  Although not specifically stated, it appears that the applicant
is requesting  consideration  based  on  clemency.   Therefore,  we
considered the applicant's  overall  quality  of  service  and  the
events that precipitated the discharge in light of the evidence  he
submitted related  to  his  post-service  activities  and  conduct.
While it appears that he has made a good start  toward  becoming  a
productive member of society, we also find insufficient evidence to
warrant a recommendation that the  discharge  be  upgraded  on  the
basis of clemency.  Therefore,  we  recommend  that  the  requested
relief be denied.

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  October  2000,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
                 Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member
                 Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 2000, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFDRB Brief, dated 3 Aug 2000.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, undated.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Aug 2000.



                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Panel Chair