RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01881
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason  for  separation,  separation  code,  and  Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his separation from the Air Force he was  willing  to  accept
anything honorable that would separate him from the  military.   His  record
reflects two  instances  where  he  broke  the  rules  (basic  training  and
technical training).

He did not  realize  at  that  time  the  importance  of  his  DD  Form  214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and the  unjust  mark
against him.  He performed his duties to the best of his  abilities  and  if
he fell short he paid the price.  He does not feel that he  should  continue
paying for another person’s personal opinion of him.  He is  convinced  that
this description of his performance marks him as a slacker and this  is  the
farthest thing from the truth.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 January 1979 in the  grade
of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

On 12 November 1980, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent
to initiate discharge action against him for being a marginal performer  and
nonproductive (specific reasons at Exhibit B).

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that  the
applicant’s  supervisors,  the  unit’s  first  sergeant,  and  himself  [the
commander] had spent many long hours toward the  counseling  and  hoped  for
rehabilitation of the applicant.  His frequent  lack  of  initiative  toward
the military indicates the rehabilitative efforts had not  been  successful.
The applicant cannot adjust to the everyday stress of military life  and  is
incapable of meeting Air Force standards.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel  and
submit statements in his  own  behalf;  or  waive  the  above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

On 12 November 1980, after  consulting  with  counsel,  applicant  requested
retention in the Air Force and indicated that  he  would  submit  a  written
presentation in support of his request for retention.

On 20 November 1980, the commander indicated  that  the  applicant  did  not
submit statements in support of his request for retention.

A resume of the applicant's performance reports follows:

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

                  5 Mar 80              8
                 19 Nov 80              4

Applicant was honorably discharged on 8  December  1980,  in  the  grade  of
airman first class, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Marginal  Performer).   He
completed 1 year, 10 months and 28 days of total active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  They  indicated  that  the
commander notified the  member  on  12  November  1980  that  he  was  being
discharged for being a marginal or nonproductive  member.   The  member  was
counseled for being late for duty on 22 and 27 August 1979; 22,  23  and  25
October 1979; 6 February 1980; 20 and 28 May 1980;  24  June  1980;  and  24
October 1980.  He was counseled for failure to repair on 5  September  1979.
He was counseled for leaving  his  place  of  duty  13  May  1980.   He  was
counseled for sleeping in an aircraft while on duty  on  14  May  1980.   He
received a letter of reprimand (LOR) for being late for duty on  28  and  30
May 1980.  He received a record of counseling for dishonored checks  written
on 6 and 21 May 1980.  He received an LOR for failure to go to  a  scheduled
appointment on 1 August 1980.  He was counseled  for  committing  a  parking
violation on 13 October 1980.

Based on the documentation in the  file,  they  believe  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation.  Additionally, the  discharge  was  within  the  sound
discretion of the discharge authority.

The applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no  other
facts warranting a change in his separation code  or  narrative  reason  for
separation.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE  states  that  they  find  no  documentation   to   support   the
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of  2P,  “Absent  without  leave  (AWOL);
deserter or dropped from rolls (DFR).”  However, based on documentation  and
member’s  narrative  reason  for  separation   “marginal   performer”   they
recommend the applicant’s code be changed  to  2C  “Involuntarily  separated
with  an  honorable   discharge;   or   entry   level   separation   without
characterization  of  service”  which  they  feel  accurately  reflects  the
applicant’s separation.  (Examiner’s Note: The advisory’s definition of  the
RE code “2P” (AWOL); deserter or dropped from rolls (DFR) is incorrect.   At
the time of discharge  in  1980,  RE  code  “2P”  is  defined  as  “marginal
performer.”  Therefore, the applicant’s RE code is correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 12 October 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  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 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  warranting  a  change  in  the
applicant’s narrative reason for separation, separation code, and  RE  code.
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits
of the case; however, the Board agrees with the opinion  and  recommendation
of the Air Force, AFPC/DPPRS, and adopts their rationale as  the  basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  The narrative reason for separation and separation  code  issued
at  the  time  of  separation  was  in  accordance   with   the   applicable
regulations.  The evaluation from  AFPC/DPPAE  defines  the  applicant’s  RE
code of “2P” as “Absent without  leave  (AWOL);  deserter  or  dropped  from
rolls (DFR).”  The Board finds that this evaluation is  incorrect.   At  the
time of the applicant’s discharge in 1980, the RE code “2P”  is  defined  as
“marginal performer” and was used to identify personnel separated under  AFR
39-10.  A review of  the  applicant’s  overall  duty  performance  while  on
active duty would appear to substantiate the  reason  why  he  received  the
codes he did.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  the
Board finds 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 28 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
                  Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 June 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 September 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 October 2001.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 October 2001.





                                TERRY A. YONKERS
                                Panel Chair