RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03841
            INDEX CODE:  100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation code and his reenlistment eligibility (RE)  code  be
changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He feels that changing the codes is right.  If the need  arises  he
would then be able to enter a Reserve unit to assist our country in
its fight against terrorism.    He can live with them as they  are,
but they are an inaccurate reflection on him as a person  and  were
nothing but an attack on  a  young  man  that  only  needed  mature
leadership.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  9  Jan  81  for  a
period of 4 years.  Prior  to  the  events  under  review,  he  was
promoted to the grade of  airman  first  class  (A1C/E-3)  with  an
effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 7 Jul 82.

A resume of applicant’s airman performance reports (APRs) follows:

            PERIOD CLOSING              OVERALL EVALUATION

                 08 Jan 82                                    7
                 14 Jul 82                                    5
                 14 Jul 83                                    4

On 25 Jul  83,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge   action   against   the   applicant   for    misconduct;
specifically, minor disciplinary infractions.  The specific reasons
for the proposed action were:

On 12 Jan 83, he failed to go to his appointed place of  duty,  for
which he received an Article 15.  He was restricted to the base and
ordered to perform extra duty for 14 days.

On 23 Mar 83, he operated a tug in a reckless manner, for which  he
received a letter of reprimand.

On 31 Mar 83, he failed to follow instructions given  by  his  Shop
Chief for which he received a letter of reprimand and establishment
of an unfavorable information file (UIF).

On 8  May  83,  he  operated  a  vehicle  which  was  not  properly
registered, for which he received an Article 15.  He was restricted
to the base for 14 days, ordered to perform extra duty for  14 days
and fined $100.

Also, he received records of counseling for failing to meet AFR 35-
10 standards on two occasions,  24  Sep  82  and  13  May  83.   He
received records of counseling on six occasions (11 Aug  82,  5 and
6 Jan 83, 4 May 83, and 10 and 11 May 83) for failure to  meet  AFR
39-6 Responsibilities.

On 5 Aug 83, after consulting with counsel and having been  advised
of his rights, applicant submitted documents in his own behalf.

On 11 Aug 83, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case file  legally
sufficient to justify an administrative  discharge  for  misconduct
and recommended that the applicant  be  separated  with  a  general
discharge, without probation or rehabilitation.  On 12 Aug 83,  the
discharge authority approved a general discharge, without probation
and rehabilitation.

On 29 Aug 83, the applicant received  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge, under the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  with
separation code JKN (Misconduct -  Pattern  of  Minor  Disciplinary
Infractions), and was issued RE Code  2B  (involuntarily  separated
under AFR 39-10, with a general discharge).  He served 2  years,  7
months, and 21 days on active duty.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They found that the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural
and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge   regulation.
Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority.  They also noted that  the  applicant  did
not submit any new evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing nor did  he  provide  any
facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE also reviewed this application and indicated that the
RE code of 2B, “Involuntarily separated with  a  general  or  under
other than honorable conditions discharge” is correct.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the
applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30  days.   As
of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit
E).
___________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing
regulations and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation
from  the  Air  Force  was  inappropriate.   At  the  time  of  his
separation from  the  Air  Force,  he  was  furnished  an  RE  Code
predicated upon the quality of his service  and  the  circumstances
surrounding his separation.  The assigned  code  reflects  the  Air
Force’s  position  regarding  whether  or  not,   or   under   what
circumstances, he should be allowed to reenlist.  His RE code of 2B
accurately reflects that he  was  involuntarily  separated  with  a
general discharge.  After reviewing the  evidence  of  record,  the
applicant’s  overall  quality  of  service  and  the  events  which
precipitated his separation from the Air Force, we find no evidence
to indicate that either the assigned separation code or the RE code
are in error or unjust.  Absent 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 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
02-03841 in Executive Session on 7 May 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Nov 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 4 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair