RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02511
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.02
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed so he may enlist  in
the Kansas Air National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After Basic  Military  Training,  he  made  a  grave  error  of  not  paying
attention to his actions while shopping and placed an  item  in  his  pocket
while looking at luggage.  He was apprehended and charged with  shoplifting.
 He was separated from the Air Force on 21 November 1995  and  given  an  RE
code of 2C.  With this code he has been unable to enlist in  other  branches
of the US military.  The Kansas Air National Guard  recruiter  has  informed
him that his RE code can be changed by a review of  the  Board.   Since  his
discharge he has grown considerably and  has  greatly  missed  the  time  he
served.  His reasons for originally enlisting have not  changed.   In  fact,
he has much more to offer to his nation and fellow citizens and  would  like
the opportunity to do so again.

In support of his request, he submits a personal statement.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23  August  1995  at  the
age of 18 in the grade of basic airman (E-1) for a period of 4 years.

On 13 October 1995, nonjudicial punishment  was  offered  to  the  applicant
under Article 15, UCMJ for stealing a box of Channel perfume, of a value  of
$32.00.  The applicant was advised of  his  rights  in  the  matter.   After
consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to demand trial by court-
martial and accepted the nonjudicial proceedings.   He  provided  a  written
presentation and requested a personal appearance before the  commander.   On
31 October 1995, after considering the matters presented by  the  applicant,
the commander determined he had  committed  one  or  more  of  the  offenses
alleged and imposed punishment on the applicant.  The applicant was  ordered
to forfeit $395 of his pay per month for two months.  The applicant  elected
not to appeal the punishment.

In the meantime, on 14 October 1995,  the  applicant  was  notified  of  his
commander’s intent to recommend his discharge for commission  of  a  serious
offense in accordance with AFPD 36-32 and  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.52.3,
with an entry-level separation.  He was advised of  his  rights  and  waived
his right to counsel and  elected  not  to  submit  statements  in  his  own
behalf.  In a legal review of the discharge case file,  the  judge  advocate
found it legally sufficient.  On 15 November 1995, the  discharge  authority
directed that he be discharged with an entry-level separation.  He served  2
months, and 29 days on active duty.  An RE-2C was assigned.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS  states  that  based
upon the documentation on file, they believe the  discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.   Airmen  are   given   entry-level   separation/uncharacterized
service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180  days
continuous active service.   The  Department  of  Defense  determined  if  a
member served less than 180 days continuous  active  service,  it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited  service.
 The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states that  the  applicant  separated  21  November  1995  after
serving 2 months and 29 days active service.  The  Reenlistment  Eligibility
(RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an  honorable  discharge;  or
entry level separation without  characterization  of  service”  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  1
November 2002 for review and response.  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  careful  consideration  of  the
applicant’s request  and  the  available  evidence  of  record,  we  see  no
evidence of an error or injustice  that  would  warrant  corrective  action.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Should the applicant provide documentary evidence pertaining  to
his post-service activities demonstrating an  established  pattern  of  good
behavior, the Board would be willing to reconsider his appeal.  However,  in
the absence of such evidence, favorable action is not recommended.

_________________________________________________________________

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 2003, 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 was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
02-02511:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Aug 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 24 Oct 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.




                                  THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                  Vice Chair