RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02752
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                    COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 2B (involuntarily  separated  with  a
general or under other than honorable conditions discharge)  be  changed  to
enable him to enlist in the Marine Corps.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE Code in the personnel system and on his DD Form 214  is  wrong.   The
RE Code 2B means retired and the computer system reflects an RE Code  of  4.
He has requested the RE Code be fixed on several occasions and has run  into
problems.  He needs the RE Code fixed and a corrected copy of  his  DD  Form
214 sent  to  him  immediately  so  he  can  show  it  to  a  recruiter  for
reenlistment.

The  applicant  provided  no  evidence  in  support  of  his  appeal.    The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 March 1996, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  at  the
age of 17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a  period  of  four  years.
The applicant  was  guaranteed  training  in  the  career  field  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC) 3P031, Security Apprentice.

The applicant was referred to the mental health  clinic  for  an  evaluation
after the applicant told his supervisor that he could no longer  take  being
in the military and his supervisor feared the applicant would harm  himself.
 The applicant was seen as a walk-in patient for a mental health  evaluation
on 22 August 1996.  He presented himself as being very depressed over  being
in the  military  and  that  joining  the  military  was  a  “big  mistake.”
Following the evaluation, the applicant was admitted to a VA  hospital  with
expressed suicidal ideation and potential thought  disorder.   In  a  social
work assessment prepared as a result of the applicant’s hospitalization,  it
was indicated that he had made false statements  about  being  suicidal  and
that he would say anything to get out of the military.  The  applicant  said
he did not want to be in the military and that he did not want to  wear  the
uniform.  He stated that if he had to  remain  in  the  military,  he  would
consider going AWOL to Canada.  The applicant was released back to his  base
on 26 August 1996 and was seen at the  mental  health  clinic  again  on  27
August 1996.  In a report dated 10 September 1996, the Chief of  the  Mental
Health Clinic stated that the applicant did not have a psychiatric  disorder
and that his suicidal claims were for personal gain to leave  the  military.
This physician stated the applicant was able  to  conform  his  behavior  to
military standards and that he should be held  administratively  accountable
for his actions.  The Axis I diagnosis was  “Malingering”  and  an  Axis  II
diagnosis was deferred.

The applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR) on  8  October  1996  for
malingering and another LOR on  11  October  1996  for  wrongful  use  of  a
controlled substance.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of  both  LORs  on
the date issued but only responded to the LOR  concerning  malingering.   He
stated  he  really  did  have  suicidal  tendencies  and  had  told  the  VA
psychiatrist during his evaluation that he didn’t, only to get  out  of  the
psychiatric ward at the hospital.

On 11 October 1996, his commander notified the applicant  of  his  intention
to establish an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) on  the  applicant.   The
applicant acknowledged receipt of this notification on the same day.  On  16
October 1996, his commander imposed 14  days  of  additional  duty  for  the
applicant, under  Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ)
punishment, for reporting late to duty on  26  &  27  September  1996.   The
applicant acknowledged receipt, consulted legal counsel,  waived  his  right
to demand trial by court-martial and accepted  the  nonjudicial  proceedings
under Article 15, UCMJ.

On 23 October 1996, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant of  his
intent  to  recommend  him  for  discharge  based  on   minor   disciplinary
infractions.  The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt,  waived  his  right  to
consult legal counsel, and waived his right to submit statements in his  own
behalf for retention in the Air Force.  On 24 October  1996,  the  commander
signed a recommendation to  the  discharge  authority  for  the  applicant’s
general discharge based on minor disciplinary  infractions.   The  commander
did not recommend probation and rehabilitation because it  was  his  opinion
that such action would be inconsistent with the maintenance  of  good  order
and discipline in the unit and not in  the  best  interests  of  the  United
States Air Force.  On 25  October  1996,  the  discharge  was  found  to  be
legally sufficient by the staff judge advocate.  On  29  October  1996,  the
discharge  authority  approved  the   recommended   separation   under   the
provisions of AFI 36-3208.

The applicant was discharged effective 31 October 1996 with a  character  of
service of general (under honorable conditions), a separation  code  of  JKN
(misconduct) and a reentry  code  of  2B  (involuntarily  separated  with  a
general or under other than honorable conditions discharge).  He had  served
7 months and 11 days on active duty.

The applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on  15
May 2002 to  have  his  reentry  code  changed.   The  AFDRB  addressed  the
applicant’s  request  on  4  October  2002  and  concluded  the  applicant’s
misconduct  was  a  significant  departure  from  conduct  expected  of  all
military members, that the characterization  of  the  applicant’s  discharge
was  appropriate  due  to  the  misconduct,  and  that  the  RE   code   was
appropriate.  The AFDRB maintained that both the Marine Corps and  the  Army
could waive the Air Force RE  Code  of  2B.   The  Board  checked  with  the
Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) and discovered the applicant’s  RE  code
was listed as a 4.  The DMDC corrected the  system  to  reflect  the  proper
code of 2B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  stated  that  the   discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge  regulation.   Additionally,  the   discharge   was   within   the
discretion of the Discharge  Authority.   The  Air  Force  Discharge  Review
Board denied the member’s request to change his Re Code on 4  October  2002.
The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE conducted a review of the applicant’s case  file  and  recommends
denial.  DPPAE states the RE code of 2B is correct.   The  DPPAE  evaluation
is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his review of the Air Force evaluations, the  applicant  chose  not  to
address the statements made in the evaluations; however, he adds  that  he
does not have emotional problems now nor  did  he  suffer  from  emotional
problems during his military service.  He was homesick and didn’t know how
to handle the situation,  which  led  him  to  display  some  foolish  and
immature actions.  He claims the marijuana accusation has been  blown  out
of proportion.  He has  never  used  marijuana.   He  made  the  statement
thinking it might contribute to his discharge.  He now  feels  embarrassed
about making the false statements.   He  is  an  older,  more  mature  and
motivated person today and wishes to be a soldier now.

The applicant’s review is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the  information  in  the  discharge  case  was
erroneous, his substantial rights were violated,  or  that  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  The RE code which was issued at  the
time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of
his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or  unjust.   In
view of the foregoing, we conclude that  no  basis  exists  upon  which  to
recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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 5 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Panel Chair
      Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr., Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  01-02752  was
considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Oct 02.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Nov 02.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Dec 02.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 03.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 2 Dec 02.




                                  MARILYN THOMAS
                                                   Panel Chair