RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03201
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to  honorable  or  his  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not do anything that would warrant this kind  of  a  discharge.
People who got Article 15’s stayed in after  tech  school,  a  lot  of
people who did more than fail a room inspection were  not  discharged.
Furthermore, he passed the block  but  they  still  took  him  out  of
school.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a DD Form 293, Application
for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of  the
United States.  Applicant's complete submission, with  attachment,  is
attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 June 2000.

On 23 May 2001, the commander notified the applicant that he was being
discharged from the Air Force for unsatisfactory duty performance  and
minor disciplinary infractions.  He recommended  a  general  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.  Basis for the action  was  from
16 February 2001 to 27 April 2001, applicant  received  3  Records  of
Individual Counseling, dated 16 March, 20 March and 27 March 2001, for
failing dorm inspection, dereliction of duty and a uniform  violation,
and 5 Letters of Reprimand, dated 16  February,  23  March,  4  April,
11 April and 27 April 2001, for overindulgence of alcohol, dereliction
of duty, failed dorm room inspection, failure to go and  violation  of
lawful  general  instruction.   Applicant  was  disenrolled  from  the
medical lab apprentice course for  academic  reasons.   He  failed  18
blocks of instruction.  Applicant waived his rights  to  consult  with
counsel and submit statements.  The discharge case file  was  reviewed
by the base legal office and found to be legally sufficient to support
separation.   On  30  May  2001,  the  Discharge  Authority   approved
separation and ordered a general discharge.

The applicant, while serving in the grade  of  airman,  was  separated
from the Air Force on 31 May 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,
Administrative Separation of Airmen (unsatisfactory  duty  performance
and minor disciplinary infractions), and received an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge.  He served 11 months and  24  days  of
total active service.

The Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  denied  applicant’s
request for an upgrade of his general discharge  to  honorable  on  12
October 2001.  The AFDRB decision document is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent  with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion  of
the Discharge  Authority.   They  recommend  the  applicant’s  records
remain the same and his request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached 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.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  states  that  he
requested an upgrade in his discharge and received a letter  from  the
Record Corrections Department saying he had gotten a general discharge
under  other  than  honorable  conditions  which  is  not  true.   His
discharge was general under  honorable  conditions  (so  please  don’t
slander him!!!)  He states, Dear Correction Authority for  once  admit
that your end made the mistake, his discharge, please  check,  it  was
general under honorable conditions.

A complete of applicant’s response is attached 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 error or injustice.  Evidence has not  been  provided
which would lead us to believe the aplicant’s discharge was  improper.
Contrary to the applicant’s  assertions,  discharge  proceedings  were
initiated against him because, within a short  time  after  his  entry
into the service, he began to compile a record of  minor  disciplinary
infractions against the good order and discipline of the service.   In
addition, the record indicates that he  failed  to  make  satisfactory
progress in training.   The  applicant  has  provided  no  documentary
evidence which would lead us to believe that the  information  in  his
discharge case file was erroneous, that his  commanders  abused  their
discretionary authority,  or  that  his  service  warranted  a  better
characterization  than  the  general  (under   honorable   conditions)
discharge he received.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no basis to favorably consider the applicant’s requests that  his
discharge be upgraded and the corresponding RE  code  he  received  be
changed.

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 5 March 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Panel Chair
                       Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                       Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered with  AFBCMR  Docket
No. 02-03201:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jan 03.




                             MARILYN THOMAS
                             Panel Chair