RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  00-03242
                       INDEX CODE  110.02  100.06
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for  his  1987  discharge  and  his  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he may serve in the Air Force
Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is no longer a conscientious objector.  When he  originally  became
interested in his church, he was  advised  that  he  should  seriously
reconsider being in the military.  After much study,  counseling,  and
acceptance into the church, he decided to apply  for  discharge  as  a
conscientious objector. The Air Force  graciously  allowed  his  early
discharge.  However, the church’s new leader brought about changes  in
doctrine and he can now be reunited with the  world  he  was  formerly
taught was sinful.  Of all the bridges he burned when he first  joined
the church, the one he most regrets was ending his career in  the  Air
Force.  He hopes to have his records changed and ultimately  serve  in
the Air Force Reserve.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Aug 84.  On 9 May
86, he  requested  separation  based  on  his  religious  beliefs  and
practices  being  in  conflict  with  his  military   commitment.    A
psychological evaluation was conducted to determine  the  presence  or
absence of any psychiatric or personality disorder that would  warrant
processing through medical or administrative channels.  On 7  Aug  86,
he was found to be mentally sound.  On 1 Sep 86, a judge advocate  was
appointed to investigate  the  sincerity  of  the  applicant’s  claim.
Following legal review of the case on 28 Oct 86  and  3  Mar  87,  the
applicant’s request for classification as
conscientious objector was approved on 31 Mar 87.   He  was  honorably
discharged as a conscientious objector in the grade  of  airman  first
class on 10 Apr 87 with 2  years,  8  months  and  4  days  of  active
service.  He was issued a waiverable  RE  code  of  “3A”  (“First-term
airman who separated before completing 36 months on current enlistment
and who has no known disqualifying  factors  or  ineligibility  except
grade and skill level and insufficient TAFMS”).

The applicant subsequently requested a change of reason  and  RE  code
from the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AF/DRB). However,  after  a
personal appearance, his appeal was denied on 15 Sep 00.

Upon filing an appeal with the AFBCMR, the applicant  was  advised  by
letter dated 6 Feb 01 that HQ AFPC/DPPRSP had amended his DD Form  214
to reflect a non-waiverable RE code of “2N”  (“Conscientious  objector
whose religious convictions preclude unrestricted assignment”).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
the appeal and provided his rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Special Programs & AFBCMR Manager, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, also  evaluated
the case and explains why they corrected the applicant’s RE code  from
“3A” to “2N.”  However, if the relief  sought  is  granted,  then  the
author  recommends  the  applicant’s  RE  code  be  changed  to   “3K”
(“Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR  when  no  other  RE  code
applies or is inappropriate [sic].” [The definition for “3K”  provided
by DPPAES is incorrect because that meaning did not exist until  1991.
In 1987, when the applicant was discharged, “3K”  meant  “Second  term
airman who has not yet been appointed to NCO status.”]

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he wholeheartedly regrets his decision to end his
Air Force career.  However, he  knew  what  he  was  doing  and  takes
responsibility for that decision. He strives for more balance  in  his
life now.  If he were allowed  to  serve  again,  it  would  mean  the
undoing of  a  massive  mistake  in  his  life  and  be  a  cause  for
celebration.  If not, he is prepared to live with that decision.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at 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.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we  are  not
persuaded that the narrative reason for his discharge and his RE  code
should  be  changed.   The  applicant  voluntarily  requested  to   be
discharged from the Air Force as a  conscientious  objector.  The  Air
Force thoroughly investigated the sincerity of  his  position  at  the
time and approved his request. The  applicant  does  not  contend  his
discharge process was  in  error;  however,  his  beliefs  have  since
changed and the requested corrections would enable him  to  fulfill  a
commitment.  While we acknowledge the  applicant’s  avowed  change  of
heart,  his  voluntary  separation  from   military   service   as   a
conscientious objector in 1987 was appropriate and sustainable by  the
evidence of record.  In view of the above, we have no compelling basis
to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 3 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Panel Chair
                  Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                  Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Jan 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 29 Feb 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Mar 01.




                                   HENRY ROMO JR.
                                   Panel Chair