RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-04057
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable  and  his  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code be  changed  to  allow  eligibility  to  reenter
active duty or the Reserves.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge may have been too severe and unjust of a punishment  for
a few minor infractions.  He has matured since his discharge.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal  statement
and additional documents associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  his
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his  enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on
1 April 1982 for  a  period  of  four  years.   He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3), with  an  effective
date and date of rank of 1 May 1983.  He was reduced to the  grade  of
airman (E-2), with a date of rank (DOR) of 6 October 1983, pursuant to
an Article 15.

On 16 February 1984, the applicant received notification that  he  was
being recommended for discharge for misconduct.  The reasons for  this
action follow:

      a.  Record of Counseling (ROC), dated  11  August  1983,  on  or
about 23 July 1983, the applicant was arrested  by  civil  authorities
for drinking in public and littering.  For this  offense,  he  had  to
perform community service.

       b.  On  29  September  1983,  applicant  was  notified  of  his
commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article  15)  for
wrongfully disposing of  a  military  dependent  identification  card,
issued to him when he was a military dependent,  by  giving  it  to  a
minor, in violation of Article 108, UCMJ.  The applicant  consulted  a
lawyer, waived his right to demand trial by court-martial and accepted
nonjudicial punishment.  On 6  October  1983,  after  considering  all
matters presented to him, the commander found that the  applicant  did
commit one or more of the offenses  alleged.   The  commander  imposed
punishment  of  30  days  of  correctional  custody  and  a  suspended
reduction to the grade  of  airman  (E-2)  until  6 April  1984.   The
applicant submitted documentation  indicating  that  he  appealed  the
nonjudicial punishment on 13 October 1983.  His request was denied.

      c.  On 16 October 1983, the applicant was cited for driving with
an expired state inspection sticker.  For this he  received  a  verbal
counseling.

       d.  On  2  February  1984,  applicant  was  notified   of   his
commander's intent to vacate his suspended nonjudicial  punishment  of
29 September 1983.  The misconduct applicant had  allegedly  committed
was for being drunk and disorderly in station, on or about 21  January
1984, and for willfully damaging  a  door  and  wall,  which  was  the
property of the U.S. Government, in violation of Articles 108 and 134,
UCMJ.  The  applicant  consulted  a  lawyer  and  provided  a  written
presentation.  On 14 February  1984,  after  considering  all  matters
presented to him, the commander  vacated  the  applicant’s  previously
suspended nonjudicial punishment and he was reduced to  the  grade  of
airman (E-2), with a new date of rank of 6 October 1983.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.   On
23 February 1984, Area Defense Counsel (ADC) indicated  the  applicant
had been counseled and advised of his rights and  privileges.   On  23
February 1984 the applicant submitted a request for retention  or,  if
discharged, an honorable characterization.  The Staff  Judge  Advocate
recommended a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.
 On 13 March 1984, the discharge authority  approved  the  recommended
separation and  directed  that  the  applicant  be  issued  a  general
discharge.

The  applicant  received  a  general  (under   honorable   conditions)
discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct -  Pattern  of
Minor Disciplinary Infractions) on 19 March 1984.  He had completed  a
total of 1 year, 11 months and 19 days and was serving in the grade of
airman (E-2) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code of  2B,
which defined means "Separated with  a  general  or  under-other-than-
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge."

On 25 January 1985, the applicant's request for a change  of  RE  code
was denied by the Air Force Personnel  Board,  Secretary  of  the  Air
Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC).

On 3 March 1985, the applicant applied to  the  Air  Force  Board  for
Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) to have  his  RE  code  of  2B
changed.  His application was denied by the Board on 18 June 1985.   A
copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP), Docket Number 85-02223, is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.   Based  upon  the
documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  DPPRS states that 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.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at  Exhibit
D.


HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied.  DPPAE states that
the applicant’s  RE  code  of  2B  is  correct.    The  HQ  AFPC/DPPAE
evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  25
April 2003 for review and response.  As of this date, no response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file
was erroneous, his rights were violated, his commanders  abused  their
discretionary authority,  or  that  his  service  warranted  a  better
characterization than the one he received.  Additionally, we note that
the applicant provided  no  documents  to  substantiate  that  he  has
maintained the standards of good citizenship in  the  community  since
his discharge; therefore, we are not inclined to exercise clemency  in
the form of an upgrade to his discharge.  With regard  to  applicant’s
RE code, inasmuch as the RE code issued at the time of  his  discharge
accurately reflects the circumstances of his  separation,  we  do  not
find this code to be in error or unjust.  In view of the above and  in
the absence of 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 Docket  Number  BC-2002-
04057 in Executive Session on 14 August 2003, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                  Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, Docket Number 85-02223.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Mar 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 Apr 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair