RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03339
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his RE code changed to reenlist in  the  service.   He  indicates
that he never abused  or  used  any  drugs  during  his  delayed  enlistment
period.  He was looking for a way out of the service.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
Corning Performance  Summary,  dated  12  April  2002,  Character  Reference
Letter, dated 26 April 2001, 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 25 September 1996 in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 10 October 1996 the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for fraudulent entry.   The  applicant
intentionally concealed prior service drug usage, which if  revealed,  could
have resulted in rejection of  his  enlistment.   Specific  reasons  are  as
follows:





        On 3 July 1996 he executed an AF Form 2030 (USAF  Drug  Certificate)
and indicated that:  He had never used or  experimented  with  marijuana  or
any dangerous drug or narcotic.  On 25 September 1996 he certified  that  he
had not used any drug, including marijuana  since  he  originally  completed
the form.  Had the Air Force known of his pre-service drug  involvement,  it
would have rendered him ineligible to enlist.

        On 7 October 1996 he executed an LTC  Form  174  and  indicated  the
following illegal involvement  with  control  substances:   Marijuana:  June
1991 through September 1996 (3-5 times  a  week),  Stimulants,  Depressants,
Hallucinogens:  July  1995  through  August  1995  (2  times   total),   and
Narcotics: May 1994 through October 1995 (3 times total).

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.

The applicant waived his right to  consult  with  counsel,  and  waived  his
right to submit statements in his own behalf.

The Staff Judge Advocate recommended that the applicant  be  separated  from
the Air Force with an entry-level separation.

On 15  October  1996,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s
discharge.

Applicant was separated on 17 October 1996, in the grade of airman  with  an
uncharacterized discharge, under the provisions of AFI  36-3208  (Fraudulent
Entry Into Military Service/Drug Abuse).  Applicant received an RE  code  of
2C, Involuntarily separated with an  honorable  discharge;  or  entry  level
separation without characterization of 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  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.

Airmen   are   given    entry-level    separation/uncharacterized    service
characterization when separation is initiated  in  the  first  180  days  of
continuous active service.   The  Department  of  Defense  determined  if  a
member served less than 180 days continuous  active  service,  it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited  service.
 Therefore, his uncharacterized character  of  service  is  correct  and  in
accordance with Department of Defense and Air Force instructions.  An  entry
-level/uncharacterized separation should  not  be  viewed  as  negative  and
should not be confused with other types of separation.

The applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge  process.   Additionally,  he
provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge.  He has not filed  a
timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE indicated that the RE code of 2C  “Involuntarily  separated  with
an honorable discharge; or entry level separation  without  characterization
of service” is correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 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 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 an error or an 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-
03339 in Executive Session on 3 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                 Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 November 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.



                       JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN, JR.
                       Panel Chair