RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01490
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  DAV

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for discharge and reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)
code of 2C be changed to  allow  eligibility  to  enlist  in  the  Air
National Guard.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The derogatory  comments  and  codes  are  too  harsh  and  in  direct
contradiction to the honorable discharge he received.

Since  his  discharge,  he  has  become  a  valuable  citizen  in  his
community.  He graduated from college with a BA in  foreign  language,
counseled youth and at-risk teens, coached football and taught foreign
language classes.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
a resume and copies of his DD Form 214 and  college  transcript.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 16 Aug 78.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of  senior
airman (E-4), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 May 81  and
was subsequently appointed a  sergeant  (E-4).   On  31  Mar  83,  the
applicant reenlisted for a period of 6  years.   His  NCO  status  was
vacated on 30 Jan  86  for  unsatisfactory  duty  performance.   As  a
result, he reverted to to the rank of senior airman (E-4).

On 5 Mar 86, the applicant received notification  that  he  was  being
recommended  for  discharge  for  unsatisfactory  duty  performance  -
failure to perform assigned duties properly, a progressively  downward
trend in performance ratings and failure  to  progress  in  on-the-job
training.  The applicant’s request for  a  conditional  waiver  of  an
administrative discharge board hearing, contingent upon  receiving  no
less than an honorable discharge, was approved on 18 Mar  86.   On  24
Mar 86, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of
AFR 39-10 (unsatisfactory performance).  He had completed a total of 7
years, 7 months and 10 days and was serving in  the  grade  of  senior
airman (E-4) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code of  2C,
which  defined  means  "Involuntarily  separated  with  an   honorable
discharge; or  entry  level  separation  without  characterization  of
service."
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS stated that the applicant entered into  training  on  17
Oct 84; however, due to his unsatisfactory duty performance, he failed
to maintain a facility rating and progress satisfactorily in  his  on-
the-job training (OJT).  As a result, he was removed from training  on
19 Aug 85 and his  specialty  code  was  withdrawn.   Based  upon  the
documentation in the applicant’s file, DPPRS  believes  the  discharge
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the
discharge regulation at that time.  The applicant did not  submit  any
new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the
discharge processing.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant’s RE code of  2C  is  correct.
The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  31
May 2002 for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response  has
been received by this office (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 error or injustice.  We noted the  applicant’s  post-
service accomplishments  since  his  discharge  and  his  efforts  are
commendable.  However, after reviewing applicant’s entire  record  and
the circumstances surrounding the  discharge  in  1986,  we  found  no
evidence that responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in
effecting  the  applicant’s  discharge,  that  pertinent   Air   Force
regulations were violated or that the applicant was not  afforded  all
the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  In view of the
above and in the absence of evidence that the applicant’s  substantial
rights were violated, that the information contained in the  discharge
case  file  was  erroneous,  or  that  his  superiors   abused   their
discretionary authority, we are not inclined to favorably consider his
request that his narrative reason for separation be changed.

5.  Applicant’s reenlistment eligibility (RE) code accurately reflects
the circumstances of his separation.  Therefore, no  basis  exists  to
recommend any change to this code.
_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 August 2002, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                  Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 May 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 23 May 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 May 02.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair