RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02057
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXX                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility  (RE)  code  2C  (involuntary  separation  with
honorable discharge) and his narrative reason for separation be  changed  to
enable him to reenter the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Because the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded his  discharge
from “Under Honorable Conditions  (General)”  to  “Honorable,”  his  reentry
code and narrative reason for separation should be changed to allow  him  to
re-enter active military service.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a statement  from  his
Veteran’s Service Office with attachments in  his  behalf.  The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 September 1992, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  at
the age of 19 in the grade of airman  basic  (E-1)  for  a  period  of  four
years.  The applicant was trained in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC)  4H0X1,
Cardiopulmonary Laboratory Apprentice.  He  was  progressively  promoted  to
the grade of airman first class (E-3), effective and with a date of rank  of
25 January 1994.  He received 3 Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) for  the
periods closing 24 May 1994, 24 May 1995 and 20 November 1995, in which  the
overall evaluations were 2, 2, and 1, respectively.  The latter two  reports
were referred to the applicant for review and comment.  He  did  not  submit
comments for review by the indorser.

On 5 September 1995, the applicant’s  supervisor  signed  an  AF  Form  418,
Selective  Reenlistment  Program   Consideration,   not   recommending   the
applicant for reenlistment because of below-standard duty performance.   His
commander approved the recommendation on 6 September 1995.

The applicant received seven Letters of Counseling (LOC)  and  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) during the period 24 January  1994  to  31 August  1995  for
dereliction of duty in the performance of his duties  as  a  Cardiopulmonary
Laboratory Apprentice and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

In the meantime, on 23 January 1995, the applicant had a  Commander-Directed
Mental Health Evaluation because of continued problems  “with  learning  and
retaining the information that he  needs  to  do  his  job  properly.”   The
attending  psychologist’s  report  of  evaluation  indicated  the  applicant
reported a long history  of  significant  learning  problems  and  Attention
Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder.  The  psychologist  indicated  that  the
applicant was medically fit for military duty but that his  suitability  for
continued military service was questionable.  The  psychologist  recommended
that the applicant continue follow-up  counseling,  be  provided  a  further
trial of  duty  and  that  if  he  continued  to  have  problems  with  duty
performance, administrative separation should be undertaken.

On 11 October 1995, he received an AF Form 765, Medical  Treatment  Facility
Incident Statement, for dereliction of duty.  The record  indicates  he  was
unable to gain and maintain  basic  knowledge  and  performance  skills  for
sustained periods.

On 11 January 1996, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant of  his
intent to recommend him for  discharge  based  on  continued  unsatisfactory
performance.  The applicant  acknowledged  receipt,  consulted  counsel  and
chose to waive his right to  submit  matters  on  his  own  behalf.   On  11
January 1996,  the  Commander  signed  a  recommendation  to  the  discharge
authority  for  the  applicant’s  discharge  based  on  unsatisfactory  duty
performance.  In a legal review dated 17 January 1996,  the  discharge  case
file was found to be legally sufficient by the staff  judge  advocate.   The
discharge  authority  approved  the   recommended   separation   under   the
provisions of AFPD 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section E, Paragraph  5.26.1,  on  25
January 1996.

The applicant was discharged with a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge  effective  29  January  1996   with   a   separation   code   JHJ
(unsatisfactory  performance)  and  a  reentry  code  of  2B  (involuntarily
separated  with  an  general  or  under  other  than  honorable   conditions
discharge).  He had served 3 years, 4 months and 5 days on active duty.

The applicant submitted a  DD  Form  293,  Application  for  the  Review  of
Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the  United  States,  on  29
February 2000.  An AFDRB hearing was held on 2 March 2002  to  consider  his
case.  The AFDRB unanimously decided to upgrade  the  applicant’s  discharge
to honorable and change his reentry code to 2C.  The AFDRB  determined  that
the reason for the applicant’s separation should not be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  reviewed  the  applicant’s  case  file  and  concurs  that   the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation.  The AFDRB reviewed his case in March 2001  and
upgraded his discharge to honorable.  The  board  also  concluded  that  the
reason for discharge (unsatisfactory performance)  should  not  be  changed.
The applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  DPPRS recommends  the
applicant’s records remain the same and his request be  denied.   The  DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the applicant’s case and concludes that the RE  code  of
2C is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  10
January 2003, for review and comment within 30  days  (Exhibit  E).   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  AFDRB  upgraded  the  applicant’s
discharge to honorable and changed his reentry code to  2C.   The  applicant
believes that, as a result f the  AFDRB’s  action,  his  records  should  be
further corrected in a  manner  which  would  allow  his  reentry  into  the
service.  We disagree.  The mere fact that his discharge was  upgraded  does
not mandate approval of the  requested  relief.   We  note  that  the  AFDRB
specifically declined to change the reason for  the  applicant’s  separation
and we concur with their decision on this issue.  The record  clearly  shows
that  the  applicant  experienced  problems  maintaining   acceptable   duty
performance standards.  Following a mental  health  evaluation,  a  military
psychologist determined that there was a medical component to his  inability
to retain the knowledge necessary to properly perform his  duties.   In  our
estimation, based on the evidence of record, the applicant’s separation  was
in the best interests of the Air Force and the individual.  Other  than  his
own assertions, we have seen no evidence by  the  applicant  indicating  the
information contained in his medical records  and  discharge  case  file  is
erroneous, he was not afforded all rights to which he was entitled, or  that
his commanders  abused  their  discretionary  authority.   Furthermore,  the
applicant has provided no evidence showing that he  would  now  be  able  to
effectively  perform  his  duties  in   the   highly   structured   military
environment.   Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  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 this application in  Executive
Session on 19 February 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  02-02057  was
considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 02 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Oct 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Dec 02
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 2003.




                                  THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                  Vice Chair