RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03038
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reenlistment code he received  signifies  he  was  an  Airman  that  was
absent without leave (AWOL).  At no time during his enlistment was he  AWOL.
 He was not aware of the meaning of the  RE  code  until  he  inquired  into
enlisting in the Georgia Air National Guard (ANG).

Applicant’s complete submission, with an attachment, is attached at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  6  October  1981  for  a
period of six years.

The applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to  initiate  discharge
action for marginal performance in required training.  The reasons for  this
action were:

      a.  On 25 January 1982, the applicant was counseled by  ATC  Form  18,
for failure to put forth satisfactory effort  and  turning  in  unacceptable
work.

      b.  On 1 February 1982, the applicant received an  ATC  Form  18,  for
failure to put forth an minimal effort  while  copying  International  Morse
Code.

      c.  On  10  May  1982,  the  applicant  was  disenrolled  from  Course
E3ABR20731, Morse Code, for prejudicial  conduct.   The  applicant  at  this
time expressed a desire to be discharged from the Air Force.

The commander advised applicant of his right to  submit  statements  in  his
behalf; and if requested, military legal counsel would be available  to  aid
in the preparation of his statements.

On 19 May 1982, the applicant waived his right  to  consult  legal  counsel,
but invoked his right to submit statements.

On 15 June 1982, he was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,
Chapter 3,  Section  B,  paragraph  3-81  (Marginal  performer  assigned  to
initial training), and was issued an honorable discharge with an RE code  of
2P which denotes the servicemember was a marginal performer or  to  preserve
good order  and  discipline,  BMT  eliminees  discharged  due  to  erroneous
enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions, and so  forth.   He  served
eight months and ten days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states  based  upon  the  documentation  in  the  applicant's
records, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Also, the  discharge
was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Based  on  the
evidence provided they recommend the requested relief be denied.

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

EXAMINER'S NOTE: Applicant does not contest the accuracy of the RE code  and
after reviewing the applicable instruction, AFI 36-2606, it appears  the  RE
code is correct.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  31
October 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to waive the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  error  or  injustice.   Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the  victim
of an error or injustice.  At the time members are separated  from  the  Air
Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the  quality  of  their
service and circumstances of  their  separation.   When  the  applicant  was
discharged he received an RE code of “2P” which at that time  indicated  the
applicant was a marginal  performer.   However,  in  1984,  the  codes  were
changed and an RE code  of  “2P”  now  reflects  that  a  servicemember  was
separated under conditions involving  being  absent  without  leave  (AWOL).
The determination as to which definition should apply is based on  the  date
of separation  of  the  servicemember.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding  the
applicant’s separation, the RE  code  issued  was  in  accordance  with  the
appropriate  directives.   Therefore,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which   to
recommend favorable action on 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-2003-03038
in Executive Session on 18 December 2003, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                       Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 21 Oct 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.




                                   CAROLYN J. WATKINS-TAYLOR
                                   Panel Chair