RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03398
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  an
honorable discharge and his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to enlist  into
the Air Force Reserves or Air Guard.  He  indicates  that  he  is  currently
employed in the civilian sector, in the Army National  Guard,  married,  and
has raised two sons.  He would like to complete  his  career  with  the  Air
Force.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an  E-mail  from  his
Squadron Leader (Washington Air National Guard), dated 10 April 2002  and  a
letter from his supervisor, dated 29 October 2001.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the time period in question the applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular
Air Force on 23 September 1983 in the grade of senior airman.

On 1 August 1986 and 2 September 1986 the  applicant  was  notified  of  his
commander's intent to  initiate  discharge  action  against  him  for  Minor
Disciplinary Infractions.  The specific reasons follow:

        He failed to meet a scheduled dental appointment on 29  March  1985,
at 1115 hours, which resulted in an LOR, dated 15 April 1985.

        His delinquency in payment to the Service Federal  Credit  Union  in
the amount of $349.28, which resulted in a Letter of Reprimand (LOR),  dated
6 January 1986.

        On or about 3 May 1986, on Highway
B-50 in front of #3 Hauptstr he operated a  vehicle,  to  wit:  a  passenger
car, while drunk which resulted in an Article 15  on  20  May  1986  with  a
suspended reduction, forfeiture, and correctional custody.

        His marginal performance  while  assigned  to  correctional  custody
from 20 May 1986 through 19 June 1986.

        On 1 September 1985 to on or about 3 May 1986, he violated a  lawful
general regulation, to wit:  Air Force Regulation 125-14,  USAFE  Supplement
1, paragraph 2-1c,  dated  28  February  1983,  by  wrongfully  operating  a
USAREUR registered vehicle without valid insurance,  which  resulted  in  an
Article 15, on 21 July 1986  with  a  reduction  to  the  grade  of  airman.
However the execution of the punishment which provided  for  reduction  from
airman first class to airman was suspended until 29 December 1986.  His  new
date of rank to airman first class was 2 July 1986.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  that
before  recommending  this  discharge,  he  had  counseled  the   applicant,
initiated 2 Article 15  actions,  enrolled  him  into  the  Alcohol  &  Drug
Rehabilitation Program, and placed him in correctional custody for 30  days.
  He  further  indicated  that  he   did   not   recommend   probation   and
rehabilitation according to Chapter 7 because further  rehabilitation  would
not turn the applicant into a productive member of the Air  Force.   He  had
shown that he would not be able to abide by the rules and regulations.   The
only option open was separation.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel,
to present his case before an administrative  discharge  board,  and  submit
statements in his own behalf; or waive the  above  rights  after  consulting
with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, applicant offered  a  conditional  waiver  of
his  rights  associated  with  an  administrative  discharge  board  hearing
contingent upon receiving no less than a general discharge.

On 26 September 1986, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate recommended  that  the
applicant’s conditional waiver be  accepted  and  he  be  separated  with  a
general discharge without suspension for probation and rehabilitation.

On 30 September 1986,  the  discharge  authority  accepted  the  conditional
waiver and approved the applicant’s discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 20 October 1986, in the grade  of  airman  first
class with a general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge,  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10.  The applicant served 6  years,  2  months  and  23
days of total active federal 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  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.
Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same and his  request  be
denied.  He has not filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They indicated that the  applicant  received
an RE code of 2B, “separated with a general or under  other  than  honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  This code 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  an  error  or  an  injustice  warranting  a  change  in   the
applicant’s characterization of service and RE code.  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 conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or  injustice.   The  applicant  has  failed  to
demonstrate that the commander exceeded his authority  or  that  the  reason
for the discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  The  Board  believes  that
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.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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-
03398 in Executive Session on 17 April 2003 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 October 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 November 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 February 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 February 2003.





                                   ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                                   Panel Chair