RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03094
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT        COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so he  can  reenlist
in the Air Force (AF).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His ability to  serve  was  impaired  by  his  youth  and  immaturity.
Psychiatric  problems  also  impaired  his  ability  to  serve.    His
discharge was based on many  offenses,  but  they  were  mostly  minor
offenses.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 December 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as
an airman basic for a period of four years.

On 22 September 1997, the  applicant's  commander  recommended  he  be
discharged for minor disciplinary infractions.  The  reasons  for  the
discharge action were:

      a.  On 8 May 1996, the applicant failed to  follow  orders  by
wearing sunglasses inside a building and did not provide a  physical
profile report to the individual completing a  safety  report.   The
applicant was also observed sleeping at his desk and had to be  told
to do things more than once.  For this misconduct the applicant  was
counseled.

      b.  On 28 May 1996, the applicant was involved in an  incident
at the dormitory in which he made disrespectful comments to a female
by requesting sexual favors.   For  this  misconduct  the  applicant
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

      c.  On 4 June 1996, the applicant failed to attend a mandatory
scheduled  appointment,  for  this  misconduct  the  applicant   was
counseled.

      d.  The applicant, on  3  October  1996,  drove  a  government
vehicle without possessing a government driver license  even  though
he had been told numerous times not to do so,  for  this  misconduct
the applicant was counseled.

      e.  The applicant, on 10  December  1996,  reported  for  duty
without any stripes sewn on his uniform,  for  this  misconduct  the
applicant was counseled.

      f.  The applicant, on 6 February 1997, failed to  be  on  time
for a scheduled appointment, after he had been briefed several times
about the time the meeting  started,  for  this  misconduct  he  was
counseled.

      g.  On or about 10 February  1997,  the  applicant  downloaded
pornographic material from the Internet onto a government  computer.
For this misconduct he received an LOR.

      h.  On 14 February 1997, the applicant returned  one  and  one
half hours late from lunch after attending an  appointment  that  he
was ordered to reschedule.  For this he received an LOR.

      i.  On or about 10 April 1997, the applicant’s room was  found
in complete disarray by the squadron commander, for this  misconduct
he received an LOR.

      j.  The applicant, on or about 30 July 1997, was  derelict  in
the performance of his duties by  negligently  failing  to  maintain
vehicle insurance.  For this misconduct he received an Article 15.

The commander advised the applicant of his right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained  for  him;
and to submit statements in his  own  behalf;  or  waive  the  above
rights after consulting with counsel.

On 22 September  1997,  after  consulting  with  counsel,  applicant
waived his right to submit a statement.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that the
applicant was given ample opportunity to correct  his  behavior  and
the applicant had not shown the necessary desire or  willingness  to
do so.  All  attempts  to  motivate  the  applicant  to  change  his
behavior and attitude had been  ineffective.   In  a  16-month  time
span, the applicant has demonstrated an ability to violate standards
in any number of ways.

A legal review was conducted on 29 September 1997 in which the staff
judge advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  a
general discharge with no probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority approved the discharge and the applicant was
discharged on 30 September 1997, in the  grade  of  airman  with  an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge, in  accordance  with
AFI 36-3208 for Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  He served  a  total
of 1 year, 9 months and 25 days of active service.

The applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) to  have  his  under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge upgraded to honorable.  They  denied  his  request  on  12
November 1998.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.   Also,  the
discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge  authority.
Also, he did not provide any  facts  to  warrant  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.  Based  on  the  information  and  evidence  provided  they
recommend the applicant's request be denied (Exhibit C).

HQ AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant received a reenlistment eligibility
code of "2B," indicating the member was separated with  a  general  or
under other than  honorable  conditions  discharge  which  is  correct
(Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
17 January 2003 and 20 February 2003,  respectively,  for  review  and
response.  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 of 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 agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error  or  an  injustice.   Although  the  applicant  contends  his
misconduct was attributed to his  age  and  immaturity,  we  find  his
discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation with  the  appropriate  reenlistment  code
attached. Based on the documentation in the  applicant's  records,  it
appears that the processing of the discharge and the  characterization
of the discharge were appropriate and accomplished in accordance  with
Air Force policy.  We applaud his efforts in turning his life  around,
however, based on the evidence provided, 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 02-
03094 in Executive Session on 25 March 2003 under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Oct 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Dec 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Feb 03.




                                        ROBERT S. BOYD
                                        Panel Chair