RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00598
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2J  to  2B  and
his general (under honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was based on the charge that he  shoplifted  merchandise
from the Shoppette on base that amounted to $109.00.  He  received  an
Article 15 in which his punishment was  45  days  of  extra  duty  and
reduction in rank to E-2.  Until the time of  his  discharge,  he  was
considered to be an honorable, dependable,  and  hard-working  airman.
After his discharge,  he  moved  on  in  life  and  has  been  serving
honorably in the Army National Guard, has been employed by  a  company
that builds military trainer aircraft, has attended a county  college,
and has served as the youth  pastor  at  his  church.   Upgrading  his
discharge to honorable will reflect his true character of service  and
the person he is.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal  statement,  an
excerpt of AFI 36-2606, and a copy of his DD  Form  214.   Applicant's
complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 July 1997.  Prior
to the events under review, he was progressively promoted to the grade
of airman first class and received one  Enlisted  Performance  Report,
closing 8 March 1999, in which the promotion recommendation was “4.”

On 17 February 2000, the commander notified the applicant that he  was
recommending discharge from the Air Force for commission of a  serious
offense.  Basis for the action was that on 23 October 1999,  applicant
stole merchandise of a value of more than $100, the  property  of  the
Army Air Force Exchange Service on McConnell  AFB,  KS;  and  wrongful
possession of an alcoholic beverage while under  the  age  of  21,  in
violation of Kansas Statutes Annotated, assimilated into  Federal  law
by 19 U.S.C., Section  13.   As  a  result,  he  received  nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, with punishment consisting of being
reduced in grade to airman and given 45 days  extra  duty.   Applicant
was not entitled to a Board hearing.  The commander did not  recommend
probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  Applicant consulted with  counsel
and submitted statements  in  his  behalf.   The  discharge  case  was
reviewed by the base legal office and found to be  legally  sufficient
to support the discharge.  On 2 March 2000,  the  Discharge  Authority
approved his separation and ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant, while serving in the grade  of  airman,  was  separated
from the Air Force on 7 March 2000 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen  (commission  of  a  serious
offense),  and  received  an  under  honorable  conditions   (general)
discharge.  He was assigned a reenlistment eligibility  (RE)  code  of
2J.  He served 2 years, 7 months, and 29 days of total active service.

While reviewing the applicant’s records, it was discovered that  there
was an error on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge
from Active Duty.  A DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214 (dated  17
April 2003), has been completed to correct item 27 of the DD Form  214
to reflect 2B and forwarded to the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Air Force Discharge Review Board  denied
the applicant’s request for upgrade of discharge  to  honorable  on  4
April 2001.  Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 25 April 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  Evidence has not been  presented
which would lead us to believe  that  the  applicant’s  discharge  was
contrary to the provisions  of  the  regulation  under  which  it  was
effected.  The applicant believes the characterization of  service  he
received was excessively harsh.  Considering the  seriousness  of  the
infraction he committed, we believe that it was not  unjust  that  his
service was characterized as “under honorable conditions.”   From  his
statement, it appears that the applicant has adjusted well to civilian
life since his separation.  We commend  him  for  his  accomplishments
since separation and encourage him to  continue  in  efforts  in  this
regard.  However, considering the fact that it has been only a  little
more than three years since his separation, and because, generally, we
have traditionally exercised clemency  in  the  form  of  upgrading  a
discharge or changing an RE code only upon the submission of  evidence
of a successful post-service adjustment over  an  extended  period  of
time, we are  not  inclined  to  favorably  consider  the  applicant’s
request  in  regard  to  clemency  at  this  time.   Accordingly,  the
applicant’s request regarding a change in the characterization of  his
discharge 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 25 June 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                       Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
Docket No. BC-2003-00598:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Mar 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.




                             PHILIP SHEUERMAN
                             Panel Chair