RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01690
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires a change in his RE code to allow  him  to  enlist  in  the  Coast
Guard.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 January  1983  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 15 September 1985, the applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent
to initiate discharge action against him  for  a  pattern  of  misconduct  -
specific reasons follow:

      On 3 June 1984, he was given a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  with  an
Unfavorable Information File  (UIF)  for  the  use  of  insulting  words  in
public.

      On  21  June  1985,  the  applicant  was  punished  under  Article  15
nonjudicial punishment for being drunk and  disorderly  on  station.   After
consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to  a  trial  by  court-
martial, did not request a personal appearance  and  did  submit  a  written
presentation.  He  was  found  guilty  by  his  commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment:  Forfeiture of $200.00 for one month  and  to  perform
extra duty for 30 days.  The applicant did not appeal the  punishment.   The
Article 15 was not filed in his UIF.

      On 19 August  1985,  the  applicant  was  punished  under  Article  15
nonjudicial punishment for being drunk and  disorderly;  willful  damage  to
the fire station by  spray  painting  various  areas  of  it,  damaged  fire
fighting pants and boots by defecating in them and breaking a  fire  station
trophy.  After consulting with counsel, applicant  waived  his  right  to  a
trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and did  not  submit
a written presentation.  He was found guilty by his  commander  who  imposed
the following punishment:  reduction to the grade of airman  basic,  with  a
new date of rank (DOR) of 19 August 1985 and ordered to perform  extra  duty
for 30 days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The  Article  15
was filed in his UIF.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that  the
applicant was counseled by his supervisor and the Fire Chief concerning  his
problems.  Additionally, he was counseled by the  Installation  Chaplain  on
numerous  occasions.   The  commander  did  not  recommend   probation   and
rehabilitation.  The applicant had not benefited  from  past  rehabilitation
efforts and further attempts would have been futile.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel  and
submit statements in his  own  behalf;  or  waive  the  above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

On 18 September 1985, after consulting with counsel,  applicant  waived  his
right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 7 October 1985, the Staff Judge Advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be
separated from the United States Air Force with a general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  The  applicant
had demonstrated by his  actions  that  despite  rehabilitative  efforts  he
would not conform his conduct to Air Force standards.  Any  further  attempt
at  rehabilitation  was  unwarranted.   A   general   discharge   accurately
characterized the applicant’s term of service.

On 11 October 1985, the administrative discharge was approved.

A resume of the applicant's performance reports follows:

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

                 13 Jan 83              8
                 19 Nov 84              9

Applicant was discharged on 15 October 1985, in the grade of  airman  basic,
with service characterized  as  general  (under  honorable  conditions),  in
accordance with AFR 39-10 (Misconduct -  Pattern  Discreditable  Involvement
with Military or Civil Authorities) with an RE code of 2B - “Separated  with
a general or under other than honorable conditions.”  He completed  2 years,
9 months and 2 days of total active duty service.

On 5 November 1987 the Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB)  considered
and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge to an honorable discharge.  They  indicated  that  the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of  the  discharge
authority and that  the  applicant  was  provided  full  administrative  due
process.   There  exists  no  legal  or  equitable  basis  for  upgrade   of
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated that the  applicant  did  not
submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred
in the discharge processing.  He  provided  no  other  facts  warranting  an
upgrade of the discharge.  He has filed a timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE indicated that the applicant’s RE code of 2B, “Separated  with  a
general or under other than honorable conditions,” is correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 July 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   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 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 an error or injustice that would warrant a  change  to  his  RE
code.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and   the
applicant’s submission, it is  our  opinion  that  given  the  circumstances
surrounding his separation from the Air Force,  the  RE  code  assigned  was
proper and in compliance with the  appropriate  directives.   Applicant  has
not provided  any  evidence  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  otherwise.
Therefore, we agree with the Air Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility
and adopt their rational as the basis for our conclusion  that  he  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.   In  the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, 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 an 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-
01690 in Executive Session on 4 September 2003 under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Nancy Wells Drury, Member
                 Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 June 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 July 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 July 2003.





                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair