RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00241
            INDEX CODE 100.06
            COUNSEL:  American Legion

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B to 3A so  that  he
may pursue a career in the U. S. Army.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is submitting this application for a correction to his RE  code  from  2B
to a 3A (waiverable) so that his application for active duty with  the  U.S.
Army can proceed.  Simply put, this correction would allow  another  service
component the  opportunity  to  review  his  record  and  qualifications  to
determine eligibility for service.   Because  of  this,  he  would  like  to
request a hearing before the board in Washington, D.C. as soon as  possible,
where his counsel  has  agreed  to  represent  him.   He  intends  to  offer
supporting evidence in the form of civilian  transcripts  as  honor  student
from both Wright State University and Sinclair Community  College,  evidence
of involvement in a number of community  activities  including  Habitat  for
Humanity, American Red Cross, and American Cancer Society, and an  affidavit
from his Air Force supervisor at the time of  his  discharge  testifying  to
the circumstances that led to his discharge.

In support of his appeal, he submitted a personal letter.

Applicant’s complete submission, with an attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an  airman  basic  on  11
Jan 90.

On 27 May 95, the applicant was alleged to have engaged  in  sexual  conduct
with a female and purposely compelled the  victim  to  submit  by  force  or
threat of force. On 26 September  1995,  the  applicant  pleaded  guilty  to
Gross Sexual Imposition in  the  county  court,  Summit  County,  Ohio.   He
received  a  suspended  18  months  sentence  in  the  Ohio  Department   of
Rehabilitation and Corrections and placed on three years probation.

On 13 Jun 96 his commander notified him that he  was  being  discharged  for
misconduct-civilian conviction.   On  13  Sep  96  he  was  discharged  with
service characterized as under other than honorable conditions in the  grade
of senior airman. He served 6  years,  11  months  and  16  days  of  active
service.  He received an RE of "2B."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation.   The  applicant  did
not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.  He has not filed a timely request.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant separated on 13 Sep 96,  after  serving
6 years, 11 months  and  16  days  active  service.   The  RE  code  of  2B,
"Separated  with  a   general   or   under-other-than-honorable   conditions
discharge" is correct.

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 21 June 2002, for review and comment within  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 error or injustice.   We  carefully  reviewed  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case  and  particularly
noted the post-service accomplishments that he mentioned.  In  view  of  the
circumstances  surrounding  his  discharge  from  Air  Force,  we  are   not
persuaded that he has been the victim of either an error or  injustice.   At
the time a member is separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an  RE
code predicated upon the quality of their service and the  circumstances  of
their separation.  The assigned  code  reflects  the  Air  Force's  position
regarding whether or  not,  or  under  what  circumstances,  the  individual
should be allowed to reenlist.  The evidence of records supports the  stated
reasons for the  applicant's  ineligibility  to  reenlist  and  we  are  not
persuaded by the evidence provided that the assigned RE code is in error  or
unjust.   The  AFBCMR  support  staff  requested  additional   documentation
pertaining to  his  post-service  accomplishments;  however,  he  failed  to
provide such evidence.  In the absence of such evidence  we  find  no  basis
for an upgrade of the RE code on the basis of clemency.   The  action  taken
by his commander appears to have been  within  his  discretionary  authority
and applicant was afforded due process.  Therefore, based on  the  available
evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably  consider  this
application.

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 issue  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 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  Docket  Number  02-00241  in
Executive Session on 20 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Mar 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE. dated 11 Jun 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair