RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00674
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  of  2C  be  changed  to  allow
eligibility to enlist in the Air Force or Army Reserves.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has matured since  his  prior  enlistment.   He  has  been  a  very
upstanding citizen and desires to be able  to  serve  his  country  in
these times of turmoil.

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy  of  his  DD  Form
214.  The applicant’s complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his  enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on
13 June 1985 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period  of  four
years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade  of  airman  (E-2),
with an effective date and date of rank of 13 December 1985.

On 8 December 1986, the applicant received notification  that  he  was
being recommended for discharge due to minor disciplinary infractions.
 The reasons for this action follow:

      (a)  On 2 February 1986, arrested on base for disorderly conduct
for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 18 February 1986.

      (b)  On 10 August 1986, received a Letter  of  Counseling  (LOC)
for failure to call his duty section as directed.

      (c)  On 10 August 1986, received an LOC  for  a  delinquent  car
rental bill.

      (d)  On 4 August 1986, received an LOC for leaving  his  toolbox
and all CTK items unsecured.

      (e)  On 17 March 1986, received an LOC for failure to  wear  the
proper uniform at a military formation and for failure  to  report  to
work afterwards.

       (f)  On  29  August  1986,  applicant  was  notified   of   his
commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article  15)  for
dereliction of duty, in violation  of  Article  92,  UCMJ.   Applicant
elected  nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15.   The  applicant
consulted a lawyer, waived his right to demand trial by  court-martial
and accepted nonjudicial punishment.  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 a suspended reduction to the grade of airman basic  until  9  March
1987.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On  8  December  1986,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification letter.  On 9  December  1986,  he  was  interviewed  and
counseled concerning his rights by  the  Area  Defense  Counsel.   The
applicant declined to submit any written  statements  in  his  behalf.
The Staff Judge Advocate indicated that the  applicant’s  service  did
not appear to warrant an honorable discharge.   On  22 December  1986,
the  discharge  authority  approved  the  recommended  separation  and
directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge.

The applicant received a general discharge on 12  January  1987  under
the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10  (misconduct  -   pattern   of   minor
disciplinary infractions).  He had completed a total of 1 year, and  7
months and was serving in the grade of airman (E-2)  at  the  time  of
discharge.  He  received  an  RE  Code  of  2C,  which  defined  means
“Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level
separation without characterization of service."

On 18 December 1987, the Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
approved  applicant's  request  for  upgrade  of  his   discharge   to
honorable; however, his request for a change of RE code was denied.  A
copy of the AFDRB Hearing Record is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states that, based upon the documentation in  the  file,
they believe the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  discharge
was within the discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.   Since  the
applicant’s discharge was  upgraded  by  the  AFDRB  and  he  did  not
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing, DPPRS defers to HQ AFPC/DPPAES for any change  in  his  RE
code.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.


HQ AFPC/DPPAE states that the applicant’s RE Code of  2C  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
30 May 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 substantial  rights  were  violated,  or  that  his
commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The  RE  code  which
was issued at the time of applicant’s separation  accurately  reflects
the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be
in error or unjust.  We  note  that  the  applicant  has  provided  no
evidence pertaining to his post-service activities.  Should he provide
evidence to substantiate that he has maintained the standards of  good
citizenship in the community since his discharge,  the  Board  may  be
willing to reconsider his request for the purpose of clemency.  In the
absence of such evidence  or  showing  that  the  information  in  the
discharge case file is erroneous or that his commanders  abused  their
discretionary authority, 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 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 31 July 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00674.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 18 Dec 87.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Apr 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 May 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Acting Panel Chair