RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01156
                                   (Case 2)
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  of  2B  be  changed  to  allow
eligibility to reenlist.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While on active duty he had an alcohol problem.  Rather  than  provide
the alcohol counseling he requested, he was discharged.

In support of his request, applicant provides his employment record as
follows:  General Dynamics for ten years; ALCOA for four and  one-half
years; Stewart Werner for four and one-half years; and, currently with
Bristol Compressors.  No supporting  documents  were  submitted.   The
applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1) on 21 June  1979  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  4 February
1980.  He was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2), with a new date of
rank (DOR) of 15 May 1980, pursuant to an Article 15.

On 26 August 1980, the applicant received  notification  that  he  was
being recommended for discharge.  The reason for this action  was  due
to the applicant’s defective attitude as evidenced by his  failure  to
maintain the prescribed standards of military deportment.

      -  22 April 1980, Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for  failure  to
report to his duty  section  at  the  time  prescribed,  on  or  about
21 April 1980, with an Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

      -  8 May 1980, Article 15 for failure to go, on or  about  1 May
1980, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.   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  (until  8  November  1980)  and
forfeiture of $50.00.  Applicant did not appeal the punishment.

      -  12 May 1980, counseled by the First Sergeant for not being in
compliance with AFR 35-10, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air  Force
Personnel, and  for  not  meeting  the  military  standards  for  room
cleanliness.

      -  28 May 1980, applicant admitted that he  was  the  source  of
obscene phone calls.

      -  6 August 1980, Notification of Intent to Vacate Suspended  15
May 1980 Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15)  for  failure  to  go  to
appointed place of duty, on or about 3 August 1980,  in  violation  of
Article 86, UCMJ.  The applicant consulted a lawyer and made  an  oral
presentation.  On  12  August  1980,  after  considering  all  matters
presented  to  him,  the  commander  vacated   applicant’s   suspended
reduction to the grade of airman, with a new date of rank.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.   On
29 August 1980, applicant was interviewed and counseled concerning his
rights by the Area Defense Counsel.  The applicant declined to  submit
any written statements in his behalf.  The local  Acting  Staff  Judge
Advocate  recommended  a  general   discharge,   without   conditional
suspension and rehabilitation.  On  5 September  1980,  the  discharge
authority approved the recommended separation and  directed  that  the
applicant be issued a general discharge.

He received  a  general  discharge  on  5  September  1980  under  the
provisions of AFM  39-12  (unsuitable-apathy-defective  attitude-board
waiver).  He had completed a total of 1 year, 2 months and 15 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  other
than an honorable discharge."

Applicant's request for upgrade of  his  discharge  to  honorable  was
denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 28 May 1991.
 In 1991, applicant applied to the Air Force Board for  Correction  of
Military  Records  (AFBCMR)  for  upgrade  of  his   discharge.    His
application was denied as untimely by the Board on 5 December 1991.  A
copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP), Docket Number 91-02392, is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denial.  DPPRS states that
the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors
or   injustices   that   occurred   in   the   discharge   processing.
Additionally, he provided  no  facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.


HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denial.  DPPAE states that
the applicant’s record reflects  a  history  of  disciplinary  actions
contrary to good order and discipline.  The 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
19 June 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.   Applicant’s  work  history  was
duly noted and we commend his conduct since  his  discharge  from  the
service.  However, no persuasive evidence  was  provided  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.   In
view of the above and absent evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis 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  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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
01156 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 19 Mar 03.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, dated 5 Dec 91, with
               AFDRB Hearing Record.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 May 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 17 Jun 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 03.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair