RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00768

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.    His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be adjusted so that  he
may reenlist in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He excelled during the first part  of  his  career  in  basic  training  and
technical school; however,  following  his  medical  problems  with  asthma,
several Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) within his command  became  obsessed
with forcing him out of the Air Force.

The applicant states that he never wanted to leave the military, but he  did
need to be at a better base.  He knows that he can do better with  a  second
chance.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits his  personal  statement,  a
letter of appreciation from the Base Blood  Drive  Project  Officer,  and  a
Memorandum  for  Record  from  an  individual  who  was  in  charge  of  the
applicant’s detail.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  on  15  June  1999  for  a
period of four years.

During  Basic  Military  Training  (BMT),  he  was  presented  for   medical
evaluation on 19 August 1999, with nasal and chest congestion and  shortness
of breath.  He was diagnosed with upper respiratory infection with  reactive
airway disease and treated with a nebulizer.

During Technical Training School, he was presented  for  medical  evaluation
on  30  September  1999,  after  performing  some  low  crawls  in  a  dusty
environment.  His  audible  expiratory  wheezes  cleared  with  a  nebulizer
treatment.  He was diagnosed with  allergic  rhinitis  and  treated  with  a
profile and Deconamine.  He was seen in the emergency room later that  night
complaining of dryness from the Deconamine, which made it difficult for  him
to breathe.  He was referred for pulmonary consultation, at  which  time  he
was diagnosed with pre-existing asthma, dating back  to  childhood  when  he
had problems with cats, which had been unmasked by recent events.

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened on 9 March 2000, for  the  purpose
of determining whether he should be continued on active duty.  Based on  the
diagnosis of asthma, the MEB recommended  he  be  referred  to  an  Informal
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).

An IPEB convened on 22 March 2000, and based on  the  diagnoses  of  asthma,
VASRD 6602, recommended he be discharged with 10% severance pay.   The  IPEB
also noted his  tobacco  abuse,  which  they  found  to  be  not  unfitting,
compensable, or ratable.  He agreed with the  findings  and  recommendations
of the IPEB on 24 March 2000.

The commander notified him on 17 April 2000, that he  was  recommending  his
administrative discharge under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph
5.49, for a  pattern  of  minor  disciplinary  infractions.   The  commander
indicated the following reasons for the action:

      a.    On 4 December  1999,  an  investigation  revealed  that  he  had
willfully consumed alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21, for  which
he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 15 February 2000.

      b.    On 1 February 2000, he failed to report to his  appointed  place
of duty on time, for which he received a Letter of Counseling  (LOC),  dated
1 February 2000.

      c.    On 16 February 2000, it was reported  that  he  made  derogatory
comments against another flight, for which he  received  an  LOC,  dated  17
February 2000.

      d.    It was brought to  the  attention  of  his  supervisor  that  he
failed to report to work on time for the third time in 30  days,  for  which
he received an LOR, dated 2 March 2000.

      e.    On 5 March 2000, he failed to report to his appointed  place  of
duty, for which he received an Article 15, dated 14 March 2000.

      f.    On 14 March 2000, he disobeyed a lawful order when he failed  to
wear his proper rank on his uniform, for which he received an LOR, dated  17
March 2000.

After consulting with military  counsel,  he  submitted  statements  in  his
behalf, and  requested  to  be  given  the  opportunity  for  probation  and
rehabilitation.  He also requested  that  his  administrative  discharge  be
dual-processed in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 6.30,  due  to  his
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).

His administrative discharge and  disability  case  were  forwarded  to  the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC)  for  dual  processing.
The SAFPC determined  his  medical  condition  did  not  contribute  to,  or
aggravate, his misconduct and the seriousness of his  misconduct  outweighed
the gravity of his medical condition.  On 25 May 2000,  the  SAFPC  directed
discharge by execution of the involuntary discharge  action  and  terminated
the disability processing action.

On 8 June 2000, he was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208  (Minor
Disciplinary  Infractions)  and  received   a   general   (under   honorable
conditions) discharge.  He was assigned an RE code  of  “2B”  (Involuntarily
separated  with  a  general  or  under  other  than   honorable   conditions
discharge).”  He completed 10 months and 26 days of active service.

The Air Force Discharge Review  Board  (AFDRB)  considered  and  denied  his
request for an upgrade  of  his  discharge  on  7  September  2000,  with  a
rehearing on 20 December 2000, with no change in the discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPAE states, in part, that the RE Code of “2B”  accurately  identifies
the applicant’s involuntary separation with a general discharge.

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation, and within the discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  The applicant did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or
identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred   in   the   discharge
processing.  In addition, he provided no other facts warranting  an  upgrade
of the discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 30 May 2003 for review and response within 30  days.   However,
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 an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record, and given the circumstances surrounding the  applicant’s
separation, we are not persuaded that his discharge should  be  upgraded  or
that a change to his RE code is warranted.  He has not established that  the
commander abused his discretionary authority in initiating discharge  action
against him.  In regard to his request for a change in his RE code, we  note
that the RE code issued at the time of separation  was  in  compliance  with
the appropriate directives.  In view of the above  finding,  we  agree  with
the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force  and  adopt  the  rational
expressed as the basis for our  decision.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

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 issues 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  Docket  Number  BC-2003-00768
in Executive Session on 17 September 2003, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
                       Ms. Patricia Kelly, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair