RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02914
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like his RE code changed to reenlist into the service.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a  personal  statement  and
other documentation.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  7  April  1999  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 4 March 1997 the applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for misconduct.  The specific  reasons
follow:

        On 6 October 1999, he failed to show for duty  on  time.   For  this
conduct, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 6 October 1999.

        On 10 December 1999, he  failed  to  complete  his  mandatory  study
time.  For this conduct, he received an LOC, dated 10 December 1999.





        On 20 May 2000, he  failed  to  show  for  duty  on  time.   He  was
verbally counseled on 22 May 2000.  Then again on 24 May 2000, he failed  to
show for duty on time.  For this conduct, he received a Letter of  Reprimand
(LOR), dated 5 June 2000.

        On 31 May and 1 June 2000,  he  failed  to  complete  his  mandatory
study time.  This conduct was evidenced by a Memorandum  For  Record  (MFR),
dated 2 June 2000, which was entered in  his  Personnel  Information  Folder
(PIF).

        On 8 and 9 June 2000, he failed to show for mandatory  study.   This
conduct was evidenced by an MFR, dated 12 June 2000, which  was  entered  in
his PIF.

        On 27 June 2000, he was arrested and held  in  civilian  confinement
for assaulting  his  roommate  and  tampering  with  a  witness.   For  this
conduct, he received an LOR, dated 7 July 2000.

        On 1, 5, and 10 July 2000, he failed to show for duty on time.   For
this conduct he received an LOR, dated 11 July 2000.

        On 13 July 2000, he failed to  show  for  duty  on  time.   At  1000
hours, he arrived at the Orderly Room with a 24  hours  quarters  slip  from
the hospital.  He did not notify his supervisor that he was  sick,  nor  did
he notify his supervisor that he was going to the  hospital.   This  conduct
was evidenced by an MFR, dated 13 July 2000, which was entered in his PIF.

        On 14 July 2000, he failed to show for duty on time.  His  duty  day
began at 0715 and he arrived at 0718, missing the beginning of  the  morning
briefing.  This conduct is evidenced by a MFR, dated  14  July  2000,  which
was entered in his PIF.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  that
before recommending this discharge, he had given the applicant  three  LORs,
two LOCs, and four MFRs as methods of rehabilitation.  He further  indicated
that he did not recommend probation and rehabilitation  (P&R)  according  to
chapter 7 of AFI 36-3208.  Probation  and  rehabilitation  is  reserved  for
those airmen who demonstrate a potential to serve satisfactorily,  who  have
the capacity  to  be  rehabilitated  for  continued  military  service,  for
completion of the current enlistment, or whose retention on active  duty  in
a probationary status is consistent with the maintenance of good  order  and
discipline in the Air Force.  The respondent did not meet any of  the  above
criteria, and therefore, was not an appropriate candidate for P&R.








The commander advised the applicant of his right to  consult  legal  counsel
and submit statements in his own behalf; or waive  the  above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

After  consulting  with  counsel,  applicant  waived  his  right  to  submit
statements in his own behalf.

The  Deputy,  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  recommended  that  the  applicant  be
administratively separated from the Air Force and furnished  with  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge, without an offer of P&R.

On 6 September  2000,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s
discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 7 September 2000, in the grade of  airman  first
class with a general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208.  He served a total of 1  year,  4 months  and  30
days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial.   They  indicated  that  based   upon   the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was  consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.
Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound  discretion  of   the
discharge authority.  The applicant did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or
identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred   in   the   discharge
processing.  He provided  no  other  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  the
discharge.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They indicated  that  the  applicant  has  a
record of disciplinary problems from 6 October 1999 to  14 July  2000.   The
RE code of 2B, “Involuntarily separated  with  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC)  discharge”  is
correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________








APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and indicated that he recognizes  his
past mistakes in the military.  He states that he was immature; however,  he
has matured since his discharge.  He has a family and wants his children  to
follow in his footsteps.  He would  like  to  make  a  difference  in  their
future.  He attends church, volunteers at a home  for  children,  and  is  a
volunteer at his son’s school.  He desires to reenlist in the Air  Force  or
Army as soon as possible to make a difference in his family  and  community.


Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice that would warrant a change to  his
RE code.  After a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  the
applicant’s submission, it is  our  opinion  that  given  the  circumstances
surrounding his separation from the Air Force,  the  RE  code  assigned  was
proper and in compliance with the  appropriate  directives.   Applicant  has
not provided  any  evidence  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  otherwise.
Therefore, we agree with the Air Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility
and adopt their rational as the basis for our conclusion  that  he  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.   In  the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2002-
02914 in Executive Session on 3 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 August 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 November 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 February 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 February 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 February 2003,
                   w/atchs.




                                JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN, JR.
                                Panel Chair