RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-03603
            INDEX CODE 100.06
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be upgraded so he can  reenlist
in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is not debating any error or injustice. His discharge  was  due  to
his use of his credit card and  unauthorized  use  of  his  roommate’s
telephone. He repaid each debt. He went to  Jackson  State  University
and majored in biology. He found work as a substance abuse  counselor.
His mistakes were due to immaturity. He is older and wiser now and  he
wants to finish his dream as a member of the US Armed Forces.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.


_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 24 Mar 94  and  was  assigned  to
Ellsworth AFB, SD.

On 8 Dec  94,  he  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for  the
following: writing four insufficiently funded checks on  or  about  12
Nov 94, claiming on 1 Dec 94 when confronted that he  had  closed  his
checking account and the credit union had made an error,  and  writing
an  additional  13  insufficiently  funded   checks.   The   applicant
acknowledged receipt but did not rebut.

On 13 Dec 94, he was counseled for  missing,  and  not  canceling,  an
appointment.

On 13 Feb 95, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for being absent from his place
of duty without authority on 8 Feb 95. On 24 Feb 95, after  consulting
with counsel, applicant waived his right to a trial by  court-martial,
requested a personal appearance and submitted a written  presentation.
On 27 Feb 95, his commander found him guilty and imposed the following
punishment: 14 days of extra  duty  and  a  suspended  reduction  from
airman first class to airmen until 26 Aug 95. The  applicant  did  not
appeal the punishment. The Article 15 was  filed  in  his  Unfavorable
Information File (UIF).

On 13 Apr 95,  the  applicant  was  counseled  for  missing,  and  not
canceling, a dental appointment on 21 Mar 95.

On 19 Jun 95, the applicant pled and was found  guilty  in  a  special
court-martial of the following: failing to obey direct orders from his
commander to restrict  the  use  of  his  government  credit  card  to
official business between 2 Dec 94  and  8  Feb  95  for  a  total  of
$3,385.60; breaking into another airman’s  dormitory  room  and,  with
intent to defraud, pretending to AT&T,  Federal  Transtel,  Inc.,  and
Sprint that he was authorized to charge $169.96 in long-distance calls
on the airman’s  account  on  18  Feb  95;  and  failing  to  pay  his
government credit card balance in the  amount  of  $3,711.19.  He  was
reduced to airman basic, forfeited $250.00 in pay per  month  for  six
months, and confined for six months.

On 2 Nov 95, the applicant was notified of his commander’s  intent  to
recommend discharge for a pattern of misconduct. The  commander  cited
the misconduct discussed above. The applicant acknowledged receipt. On
3 Nov 95, the  commander  recommended  the  applicant  for  a  general
discharge  for   the   cited   misconduct,   without   probation   and
rehabilitation. After consulting counsel,  the  applicant  waived  his
right to submit statements.

The case  was  found  legally  sufficient  and  was  approved  by  the
discharge authority on 9 Nov 95.

The applicant  was  discharged  with  a  general  characterization  of
service in the grade of airman basic on 15  Nov  95  with  1  year,  7
months  and  22  days  of  active  service.  His  Separation   Program
Designator (SPD) code was “JKA,” Pattern of  Misconduct,  and  his  RE
code was “2K” (Has been formally notified by  the  unit  commander  of
initiation of involuntary separation).

On 9 Jan 03, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP  notified  the  applicant  that  they  had
administratively  corrected  his   RE   code   from   “2K”   to   “2B”
(Involuntarily separated with a general or under other than  honorable
conditions discharge).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS provided their rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE advises that the applicant’s original RE  code  of  “2K”
has been administratively changed to “2B.”

A complete copy of the 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 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days.   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. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded his RE code should be changed. Further, we  do  not  believe
the discharge, which drove  the  RE  code,  should  be  upgraded.  The
applicant’s original RE code of “2K” was administratively  amended  to
“2B,” which correctly reflects he was involuntarily separated  with  a
general discharge. The applicant displayed  a  pattern  of  misconduct
during his brief military career. He submits no evidence leading us to
believe  the  LOR,  the  Article  15,  or  the  special  court-martial
conviction were improper. In cases of this nature, we are reluctant to
disturb the judgments of command officers absent a strong  showing  of
abuse of discretionary authority.   We  have  no  such  showing  here.
Further, the applicant has not demonstrated that he  was  deprived  of
any right to which he was entitled or that the actions  taken  against
him were not brought about by his own misconduct.  The  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of having suffered  either  an  error  or
injustice. Therefore, in view  of  the  above  and  absent  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find 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 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 15 May 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03603 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Dec 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 Dec 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair