RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-04029
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since his discharge was upgraded to honorable, he feels  that  his  RE
code should reflect the upgrading of his discharge.

The applicant did not provided any documentation  in  support  of  his
appeal.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 January 1983.

On 8 February 1985, the commander notified the applicant that  he  was
recommending  a  discharge  for  a  pattern  of   minor   disciplinary
infractions and was recommending a general discharge.  Basis  for  the
action:  Letter of Reprimand for failure to comply with unit standards
concerning scheduling and  leave  procedures  on  11  June  1984;  two
Letters of Counseling for failure to comply with AFR  35-10  standards
and disobeying a lawful order to check a patient on 17 August 1984 and
on 20 November 1984.  He received two Articles 15,  dated  23  October
1984 and 23 January 1985, for failure to go at the time prescribed  to
his appointed place of duty.  Punishment included  forfeiture  of  pay
for one month and correctional custody (suspended  until  March  1985)
for 10 days.  However, in January 1985, the suspended portion  of  his
correctional custody was remitted when he received his second  Article
15 and was reduced in grade to airman basic.

Following his receipt of notification of  the  discharge  proceedings,
the applicant consulted counsel but  did  not  submit  statements  and
stated he did not want to remain in the Air  Force.   The  base  legal
office and separation officials reviewed  the  discharge  package  and
found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.   Probation  and
rehabilitation (P&R) were not recommended.   The  Discharge  Authority
approved the separation and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant, while  serving  in  the  grade  of  airman  basic,  was
discharged from the Air Force on 1 March 1985 under the provisions  of
AFR 39-10 (Misconduct - Pattern  of  Minor  Disciplinary  Infractions)
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.   He  served  3
years, 1 month and 20 days of total active service.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied  his  request  for
upgrade in October 1987 and  referred  the  case  to  this  Board  for
further consideration.  Subsequently, the Board upgraded his discharge
to honorable on 8 March 1988.  The AFDRB decision document and a  copy
of the directive are 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.  The applicant’s  characterization  has  been
upgraded; therefore, they would not be opposed to changing his RE code
if relief is granted by AFPC/DPPAES.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states that the applicant was  discharged  with  a  general
(under  honorable  conditions)  discharge.   The   RE   code   of   2C
(Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level
separation with characterization of service), is correct.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached 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 30 days.  As
of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________




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;
however, after careful consideration of applicant's  request  and  the
available evidence  of  record,  we  find  the  application  untimely.
Applicant did not file this  request  within  three  years  after  the
alleged error or injustice was discovered, or  reasonably  could  have
been discovered,  as  required  by  10,  U.S.C.  1552  and  Air  Force
Regulation 31-3.  Applicant has not shown a plausible reason  for  the
delay in filing, and we are  not  persuaded  that  the  record  raises
issues of error or injustice which require resolution on  the  merits.
Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the  interest  of  justice  to
excuse applicant's failure to file in a timely manner.

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 8 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                       Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:



      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 02.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jan 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Feb 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Vice Chair