RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01907
            INDEX CODE:  112.10

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He worked in a very negative and uncomfortable work  environment.   He
had individuals  who  deliberately  tried  to  sabotage  his  military
career.  It was not his decision to separate from the military and  he
believes that one year and seven months is not a sufficient amount  of
time to determine whether or not a person can handle the military.  He
knows for a fact that he can be a valuable asset to the  military  and
can do nothing but improve if he was to reenter.  In  support  of  his
request, he states that he filed complaints to social actions and  the
base IG concerning his squadron.  He is a United  States  citizen  and
should be treated with justice, no matter what the circumstances  are.
He is not trying to prove anyone wrong.  He just wants fair treatment.

Applicant submits a copy of his DD  Form  214.   Applicant's  complete
submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 February 2000, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force
for 4 years.  He was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  airman
first class (E-3).   Following  his  successful  completion  of  basic
military and technical training, he  was  assigned  to  duties  as  an
environmental apprentice, on or about 10 August 2000.

On 26 November 2001, the commander notified the applicant that he  was
recommending a general discharge  for  misconduct.   Reasons  for  the
action  were:   an  Article  15  and  Unfavorable   Information   File
established in October 2001 for being disrespectful in language  to  a
senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO) and dereliction  in  performance
of duties for failure to clean the inside of an engine compartment  in
a vehicle, for which he was reduced to airman  and  reprimanded;  five
Letters of Reprimand (3 July 2001, 20 August 2001, 12 October 2001, 18
October 2001 and 24 October 2001) for being disrespectful to an  SNCO,
failing dormitory room inspection and disobeying a lawful  order;  and
five Letters of Counseling   (7 September 2000, 12  October  2000,  18
October 2000, 15 November 2000 and 12 December 2000)  for  failure  to
go,  disobeying   lawful   orders,   uniform   violation   and   being
disrespectful to an NCO.  Applicant consulted with  the  Area  Defense
Counsel and submitted statements for consideration to  his  commander.
He requested consideration for probation and rehabilitation (P&R)  and
an honorable discharge.  The base legal services reviewed the case and
found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.   The  discharge
authority considered P&R,  but  concluded  that  further  attempts  at
rehabilitation were  not  appropriate,  approved  the  separation  and
ordered a general discharge on 3 December 2001.

The Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  denied  applicant’s
request for an upgrade of discharge on 21 August 2002.  A copy of  the
AFDRB hearing record is attached at Exhibit B.

On 19 March 2003, the AFBCMR considered and denied applicant’s request
to that his general discharge be upgraded to  honorable.   A  complete
copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent  with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion  of
the discharge authority.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE states that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code  of  2B,
“Separated with a general or under other than  honorable  conditions,”
is correct.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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, 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 error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error
or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  His  contentions  are
noted;  however,  in  our  opinion,  the  comments  provided  by   the
appropriate Air Force offices adequately  address  those  allegations.
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation  of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the  conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   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  this  application,  BC-
2003-01907,  in  Executive  Session  on  28  August  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James E. Short, Member
                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jun 03, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Record of Proceeding, dated 14 May 03, w/atch.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Jun 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Jul 03.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.



                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair