RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03039
                                        INDEX CODE 100.06
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed so he can reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not believe he should have received the type of RE code he  has.  He
wants to reenlist.  Although  he  got  out  of  the  service,  his  life  is
extremely involved in the military.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  on  26  Jun  97  and  was
assigned to the 56th Civilian Engineering Squadron (56  CES)  at  Luke  AFB,
AZ.

On 31 Mar 98, the commander notified the applicant  he  was  recommending  a
general discharge for minor disciplinary actions. The  commander  cited  the
following reasons:

            A Letter of Counseling (LOC) on 4 Sep 97 for  failing  his  room
inspection that day.

            A Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 20 Nov 97 for having  alcohol  in
his refrigerator on 15 Nov 97 in violation of regulations.

            An LOR on 27 Jan 98 for failing to obey a lawful  order  to  put
his ear flaps up and carry his backpack correctly that day.

            An Article 15 on 23 Feb 98 for wrongfully stealing two  cassette
tapes from the Luke AFB Exchange on 3 Feb 98. (He was  reduced  from  airman
to airman basic and given extra duty.)

            An Article 15 on 13 Mar 98 for stealing  a  cassette  tape  from
the Luke AFB Exchange on 2 Jan 98. (He was reprimanded.)

The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  and,  on  3  Apr  98,  the  commander
recommended a general discharge without probation and  rehabilitation  (P&R)
for the  above  cited  reasons.  The  applicant  provided  a  statement  for
consideration.

On 7 Apr 98, legal review  found  the  case  sufficient  and  recommended  a
general discharge without  P&R.  On  10  Apr  98,  the  discharge  authority
concurred.

On 13 Apr 98, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic  for
misconduct with a general characterization of service after 9 months and  18
days of active service. He received an unwaiverable RE code of 2B,  meaning:
“Separated with a general or  under-other-than-honorable-conditions  (UOTHC)
discharge.” The discharge characterization drove the type  of  RE  code  the
applicant received.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the
discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant has not  submitted  evidence
of errors or injustices. As he has provided no facts warranting a change  in
his discharge, denial is recommended.

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a response, claiming he did not receive two  separate
Article 15s, that the 2 Jan 98  incident  did  not  occur.  He  believes  he
should be given a second chance like his wife, who was  involved  in  the  3
Feb 98 incident.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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. The  applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we are not persuaded that his RE  code  should  be  changed.
Contrary to his rebuttal assertions, the  applicant  did  receive  a  second
Article 15 on 13 Mar 98 for stealing a cassette tape on 2 Jan 98. The  first
Article 15 reduced him to airman basic and gave him extra duty;  the  second
reprimanded him. In fact, he even acknowledged the 2 Jan 98  and  3  Feb  98
thefts and unsuccessfully requested the commander to reissue  a  new  single
Article 15 that included both  charges  rather  than  issuing  two  separate
nonjudicial punishments. The applicant wants  a  “second  chance”  like  his
wife; however, it is the merits of his case that  we  are  considering,  not
his wife’s circumstances. 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. 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.  The  applicant’s  misconduct
resulted in his general discharge, which  drove  the  type  of  RE  code  he
received. Therefore, we find no basis  upon  which  to  recommend  favorable
action on the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 in  Executive
Session on 11 and 16 December 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence regarding AFBCMR Docket  Number  BC-2003-
03039 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Aug 03, with atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Oct 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated (received 16 Dec 03),
                                        w/atch.



                                             MARILYN THOMAS
                                             Panel Chair