RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02807
            INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he  may  serve  in
the Naval Reserve Intelligence Service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His was discharged in 1985 for failing room inspections.  He  was  given  an
Article 15 for failing room inspections and spent 30  days  in  correctional
custody for failing  room  inspections.   He  feels  that  the  charges  for
failing room  inspections  were  ludicrous  and  the  result  of  his  first
sergeant who openly exclaimed that he was going to do  everything  he  could
to make the applicant a civilian.  Some  of  the  room  inspection  failures
were for dust  on  a  door  hinge,  dust  on  a  cotton  flag,  or  a  dirty
refrigerator that was  communally  used,  and  in  fact,  not  used  by  the
applicant.  He does not dispute that he owed the NCO club  $40  or  that  he
got two speeding tickets.  But the bulk of his separation  was  balanced  on
the point of room inspection failures which were the result of the  personal
vendetta between him and the first sergeant.   Because  his  first  sergeant
lied about the details of the  room  inspections  the  commander  ordered  s
Social Actions investigation which resulted in the  first  sergeant's  early
retirement.

His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13  May  85,  applicant  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was
recommending that he be discharged from the Air  Force  in  accordance  with
AFR 39-10, paragraphs 5-46 and 5-47a for a  pattern  of  minor  disciplinary
fractions and misconduct.  The specific reasons for  this  action  were;  he
received letters of reprimand on 24 Apr 85, 11 Apr 85, 8 Feb 85, 13 Nov  84,
29 Mar 84, 10 Feb 84, and 28 Jul 83; he received letters of counseling on  1
Aug 84, 12 Mar 84, and 31 Oct 83; he received a letter  of  admonishment  on
10 Sep 84, he received  nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15  of  the
Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 12 Mar 84,  he  was  issued  an
armed forces traffic ticket, and he received an  incident/complaint  report.
He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the
notification on that same date.  The applicant provided a written  statement
on his own behalf.   In  a  legal  review  of  the  case,  the  staff  judge
advocate, found the case legally  sufficient  and  recommended  that  he  be
discharged with a general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge,  without
probation  and  rehabilitation.   On  4  Jun  85,  the  discharge  authority
concurred with the  recommendations  and  directed  that  he  be  discharged
without probation and rehabilitation.  Applicant  was  discharged  from  the
Air Force on 7 Jun 85.  He served 2 years, 5 months, and 25 days  on  active
duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that  the   discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation,  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any
errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge  proceedings.   He
petitioned the Air Force Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  to  upgrade  his
discharge to honorable in 1993.  His request was denied but  the  AFDRB  did
change the reason for his discharge to Minor Disciplinary Infractions.   The
DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states that the RE code of 2B  "Involuntarily  separated  with  a
general or under other than  honorable  conditions  discharge"  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
Jan 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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  are  not
persuaded by the evidence submitted in support of his appeal that  a  change
to his RE code is warranted.  We find no evidence of error in this case  and
after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he  has
been the victim of an injustice.  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.  In the  absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
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 Docket Number BC-2002-2807  in
Executive Session on 27 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
      Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated.23 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 03.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair