RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01460
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) and separation codes be  changed  to
allow him to reenter military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received several parking tickets prior to entering active duty.  He
gave the tickets to his mother for her  to  take  care  of.   Shortly,
after giving his mother the tickets  he  left  for  Florida  and  from
Florida he entered into active duty.  He assumed his mother  had  paid
the tickets.  While in basic training he was informed that some of the
tickets were not paid.  He contacted his mother and she confirmed that
some of the tickets had not been paid.  He took care  of  one  ticket,
but did not have enough time to pay the remaining tickets  because  he
needed a waiver and did not have sufficient time before his next  duty
station.  He was told he would be discharged from the  Air  Force  and
could reenter after the tickets had been paid.

He recently tried to reenlist in the Air Force and was told  he  could
not reenlist in active duty and the only way he could reenter the  Air
Force would be through the reserves and then go  to  technical  school
and try to enter into active duty once he finished  technical  school.
He visited an Air Force Reserves’ recruiting office and  was  informed
that his separation and reentry codes did not match.

He would like this information to be considered  in  the  decision  in
allowing him to reenter into active duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26  July  2001,  as  an
airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 18 September 2001, the training squadron interviewed the  applicant
for possible fraudulent entry for concealment of a  violation  of  the
law.  The following is a list of his violations:

            August 2000, Killeen, TX - Speeding, paid $100 fine.
            August 2000, Killeen, TX - No Driver’s  License,  paid
$80 fine.
            August 2000, Killeen, TX - Seat Belt  violation,  paid
$90 fine.
            November 2000, C Cove, TX - No  Insurance,  paid  $300
fine.
            November 2000, C Cove, TX - Seat Belt violation,  paid
$90 fine.
            January 2001, C Cove, TX - Speeding, paid $95 fine.

On 19 September 2001, the applicant’s training squadron indicated in a
14 August 2001, Memorandum to Whom  it  May  Concern,  that  they  had
initiated a waiver request for  over  five  (5)  outstanding  (unpaid)
traffic violations that the applicant had not listed on Standard  Form
86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions.  The Memo indicated
that these open violations were disqualifying for  entry  in  the  Air
Force and that the applicant was allowed three (3) weeks to provided a
receipt of payment; only then would the  waiver  request  be  pursued.
The Memo further indicated that on 17 September  2001,  the  applicant
advised that he had paid the fines in full and provided a  receipt  of
payment.  The Memo indicated that  the  squadron  was  advised  on  18
September 2001 by the Recruiting Services Liaison that  the  applicant
had two more violations  that  were  unpaid  and  that  had  not  been
revealed.  It was requested that either  approval  or  disapproval  be
given for the applicant to be retained to pay and resolve  the  fines;
if not approved for  retention,  then  he  would  be  transferred  for
discharge processing.  The two new violations were for  no  seat  belt
with a $140 fine and no driver’s license violation with a $89 fine.

On 25 September 2001, the applicant was notified  of  his  commander’s
intent to recommend  him  for  an  Entry  Level  Separation  based  on
fraudulent entry.

The commander stated the specific reason for  the  proposed  discharge
was that the applicant failed to disclose on his Standard Form (SF) 86
all traffic violations.

The commander advised the applicant of his right  to  consult  legal
counsel, and if he so desired an  appointment  would  be  made  upon
request.  He was advised that failure to  consult  with  counsel  or
submit statements could constitute his waiver of his  rights  to  do
so.

On 25 September 2001, the applicant, after consulting with  counsel,
waived his right to submit a statement.

On 26 September 2001, a legal review was conducted in which the  staff
judge advocate recommended the applicant be separated with  an  entry-
level separation.

On 28 September 2001, the discharge authority  approved  the  entry-
level discharge.

The  applicant  was  separated  with  an  uncharacterized  entry-level
separation on 2 October 2001 for fraudulent entry into the Air  Force,
in the grade of AB and  issued  an  RE  code  of  “2C”,  Involuntarily
separated with  an  honorable  discharge;  or  entry-level  separation
without characterization of service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states the Department of Defense (DOD) determined  that,
if a member served less than 180 days of continuous active service, he
would  receive  an  entry-level   separation/uncharacterized   service
characterization when separation was  initiated.   The  separation  is
uncharacterized because it would be  unfair  to  the  member  and  the
service to try  and  characterize  the  limited  time  served.   DPPRS
further states  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  procedural  and
substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.   Also,  the
discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge  authority.
Nor, has the applicant provided any evidence identifying any errors or
injustices in the processing of his discharge.  Based on the  evidence
provided they recommend the requested relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAES states the  reenlistment  eligibility  code  "2C"  is  the
applicable code for a member separated involuntarily with an honorable
discharge,  or  entry-level  separation  without  characterization  of
service.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
11 July 2003, for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response
has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After careful  consideration  of
the circumstances of this  case  and  the  evidence  provided  by  the
applicant, we are not persuaded that  the  discharge  action  and  the
resulting reenlistment eligibility and separation  codes  he  received
were in error or unjust.   Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   The
applicant was afforded the opportunity to rectify the  situation  with
his traffic violations and failed to properly do  so.   Therefore,  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01460 in Executive Session on 26 August 2003 under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                 Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 May 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Jun 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Jul 03.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.




                                        JOHN L. ROBUCK
                             Panel Chair