RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02695
            INDEX CODE: 100.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code be changed to  one  that  would
enable him to reenlist.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not allowed to rehabilitate  himself  in  the  Air  Force.   He
blames himself and claims embarrassment and humility  as  factors  for
not arguing his case further at the time.  (Exhibit A)

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force  on   7
April 1981.  He was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  Airman
First Class (A1C) with an effective date and date of rank of  7  April
1982.  Applicant’s records  contain  two  Airman  Performance  Reports
(APRs), the first of which was rated an  overall  seven  (7)  and  the
final APR an overall three (3).

On 21 July 1982, the applicant received a Letter of  Counseling  (LOC)
for being late for duty.  On 4 October 1982, he received a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for failure to report to duty.  On    10 December  82,
the applicant received an Article 15 for leaving a duty  area  without
permission and for not reporting to his duty location on the next day.
 The Article 15 punishment imposed a suspended reduction in  grade  to
Airman (Amn) through 15 May 1983 and forfeiture of $100.00  per  month
for two months.  On         21 January 1983, the applicant’s commander
vacated the suspended reduction in grade to Amn as  a  result  of  the
applicant’s role in the destruction of government  property  exceeding
$100.00 in value.  The applicant was duly demoted  to  Airman  with  a
date of rank of 10 December 1982.

On 9 March 1983, the applicant received notification that he was being
recommended  for  discharge  due  to  discreditable  involvement  with
military or civil authorities.  The specific reasons for the  proposed
discharge were the incidents cited above.  The commander  stated  that
before recommending the discharge, the applicant had been enrolled  in
the drug rehabilitation program, and counseled verbally, as well as by
written means, regarding his behavior.  He was also counseled  by  the
first sergeant concerning  other  infractions  (i.e.  being  late  for
work).  The commander did not recommend probation and  rehabilitation.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge action,  consulted
with counsel, and waived his right to submit statements in his behalf.

The applicant received a general discharge on 1 April 1983  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10, Discreditable Involvement  with  Military  or
Civil Authorities.  He had completed a total of 1 year, 11 months, and
25 days of active service and was serving in the grade of Airman  (E2)
at the time of discharge.  He received an RE code  of  2B,  “Separated
with a General  or  Under  Other  Than  Honorable  Conditions  (UOTHC)
discharge.”

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial based on the applicant not submitting
any new  evidence  nor  identifying  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred during his discharge.  DPPRS stated that  the  discharge  was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation and that the discharge authority acted within its
discretionary boundaries.  (Exhibit C)

HQ AFPC/DPPAE verified that the RE  code  of  2B,  “Separated  with  a
general or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge” is
correct.  (Exhibit D)

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
15 November 2002, for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.  (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.   After  careful  review  of  the
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s involuntary separation,  the
discharge appears to be in compliance with  the  governing  regulation
and we find no evidence to indicate


                                      2
that his separation from the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find  no
evidence of error in this case  and  after  thoroughly  reviewing  the
documentation that  has  been  submitted  in  support  of  applicant's
appeal,  we  do  not  believe  he  has  suffered  from  an  injustice.
Applicant’s  RE  Code  of  2B  accurately  reflects  his   involuntary
separation  with  a  general  discharge.   Therefore,  based  on   the
available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably
consider this application.

________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02695 in Executive Session on 30 January 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member
      Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 14 Aug 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dtd 11 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dtd 12 Nov 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 15 Nov 02.




                                   EDWARD C. KOENIG, III
                                   Panel Chair












                                      3