RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02991
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His actions for why he was discharged did not require such  a  severe  code.
He  received  an  Article  15,  nonjudicial  punishment,   for   having   an
unaccompanied female companion stay with him in his dormitory for more  than
72 hours.

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 27 September 1995 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  Minor  Disciplinary  Infractions.
The specific reasons follow:

         On  3  May  1996,  he  failed  to  appear  to  a  scheduled  dental
appointment.  For this offense, he received an LOC, dated 9 May 1996.




        On 14 June 1996, he wore a uniform that was not in  compliance  with
AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel.   He  was
counseled several times to improve the appearance of his  uniform.   He  was
also advised not to wear an unserviceable blue  shirt  again,  but  he  did.
For these offenses, he received an LOC, dated 14 June 1996.

        On 18 October 1996, he arrived 15 minutes  late  for  duty.   On  19
October 1996, he reported 10 minutes late, missing the  opportunity  to  arm
for duty until guardmount was completed.  On 25 October 1996, he arrived  13
minutes later than instructed.  For these offenses, he received a Letter  of
Counseling (LOC), dated 26 October 1996.

        A notification letter, dated 2 November 1996, was  received  by  the
commander’s office indicating that he was 60 days past due on  his  Deferred
Payment Plan (DPP)  and  Uniform  Clothing  Deferred  Payment  Plan  (UCDPP)
accounts.  He dishonorably failed to pay his just debts.  For this  offense,
he received an LOR, dated 8 November 1996.

        On 5 November 1996, he wore a uniform that  was  not  in  compliance
with AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel.   On
5 November 1996, he also failed  his  Stan-Eval  for  the  second  time  and
failed to open his assigned gate on  time.   Opening  the  gate  late  is  a
dereliction of duty.  For these  offenses,  he  received  an  LOR,  dated  7
November 1996.

        On 15 November 1996, he was late for  his  scheduled  pre-deployment
pack and check.  He was  scheduled  to  be  present  at  0800;  however,  he
arrived 30 minutes tardy after he had  been  summoned  by  other  personnel.
For this offense, he received an LOR, dated 15 November 1996.

    Between on or about 1 January 1997 and 17 January 1997, he was  derelict
in the performance of his duties in that  he  willfully  failed  to  refrain
from having guests in his dormitory room for more than 72 hours, as  it  was
his duty to do.  Between on or about 1 December 1996 and  16  January  1997,
he was derelict in the performance  of  his  duties  in  that  he  willfully
failed to refrain from having unauthorized pets in his  dormitory  room,  as
it was his duty to do.  Between on or about 1 December 1996  and  16 January
1997 without proper authority, he willfully  damaged  military  property  of
the United States, the amount of said damage  being  in  the  sum  of  about
$92.25.  After consulting with counsel, applicant  waived  his  right  to  a
trial by court-martial, requested a  personal  appearance  and  submitted  a
written presentation.  He was found guilty by his commander who imposed  the
following punishment:  He received nonjudicial punishment  consisting  of  a
reduction to the grade of airman basic, suspended  forfeitures  of  $50  pay
per  month  for  2  months,  and  a  reprimand.   Punishment   was   imposed
20 February 1997.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article  15
was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

        On or about 12 February 1997, he failed  to  maintain  his  assigned
quarters in accordance with standards as outlined in  AFI  32-6005  and  the
Wing Dormitory  Guide.   Specifically,  he  willfully  kept  a  pet  in  his
dormitory room after he had been previously directed  to  remove  them  from
his government quarters.  For this offense, he received  an  LOR,  dated  13
February 1997.

        On 26 February 1997, he failed to report for duty at the  prescribed
time of 0730.  He reported in at 0748 and also  failed  to  inform  the  Law
Enforcement Superintendent of his arrival.  For this offense, he received  a
Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 26 February 1997.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  that
before  recommending  this  discharge,  the  applicant  was  given   several
opportunities to improve his conduct.  Unfortunately, he had  not  responded
to these rehabilitative efforts.  The commander further  indicated  that  he
did not recommend probation and rehabilitation (P&R) according  to  AFI  36-
3208, Chapter 7.  The applicant was given the  opportunity  to  correct  his
actions.  However, even  after  being  served  with  the  intent  to  impose
Article 15 proceedings, he again kept a pet in  his  room  in  violation  of
directives.  His continued service in  the  Air  Force  would  have  had  an
adverse  impact  on  good  order  and  discipline   within   the   squadron.
Accordingly, he  believed  that  P &  R  was  inappropriate,  and  that  the
applicant should be removed from the service as quickly as possible.

On 7 March  1997,  the  applicant  received  an  AF  Form  77,  Supplemental
Evaluation Sheet, for the period 8 March 1996 through  4  March  1997.   The
type of report received was a Letter of Evaluation (LOE).

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.

On 26 March 1997, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended  that  the  applicant
be separated from the service with a general discharge,  without  suspension
of the discharge’s execution for probation and rehabilitation.

On  27  March  1997,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the   applicant’s
discharge.






Applicant was discharged on 2 April 1997, in the grade of airman basic  with
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3208.  He served a total of  1 year,  6  months,  and  7  days  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  and  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.   A  review  of  the  applicant’s   records
revealed that the commander notified applicant on 4 March 1997 that  he  was
being discharged from the Air Force for  a  pattern  of  minor  disciplinary
infractions (misconduct).  The applicant’s RE code is correct.  He  received
the proper RE code upon his  separation  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2606,
Reenlistment in the USAF.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 7 February 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the  applicant  has  been  the
victim of either an error or an injustice.   The  Board  believes  that  the
discharge apparently complied with the governing  regulation  in  effect  at
that time; responsible officials applied appropriate standards in  effecting
the separation, and  the  Board  does  not  find  persuasive  evidence  that
pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not  afforded  all
the rights to which entitled at the time  of  discharge.   In  view  of  the
above finding, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief
sought.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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  02-02991
in Executive Session on 20 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 September 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 November 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 January 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 February 2003.




                                JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                Panel Chair