RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03186
            INDEX CODE:  100.06

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code is unjust.  He does not believe  that  he  was  given  the
benefit of the doubt that he could change  for  the  better.   He  has
matured since his discharge and no  longer  feels  that  the  code  is
appropriate.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Aug 95 for  a  period
of four years in the grade airman basic.

On 15 Mar 96, the applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending that the applicant be discharged for  minor  disciplinary
infractions.  The reasons for this action were:   On  31  Oct  95,  he
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to follow  orders  on
30 Oct 95; on 9 Nov 95, he received an  LOR  for  harassing  a  female
student on 6 Oct 95; on 13 Nov 95, he received an LOR for  failure  to
report to a mandatory formation on 9 Nov 95; on 5 Dec 95, he  received
an Article 15 for malingering on 27 Nov 95; on 7 Dec 95,  he  received
an LOR for conducting himself in a manner inconsistent with good order
and discipline on 23 and 24 Nov 95; on 8 Dec  95,  he  failed  a  room
inspection and received an AETC Form 341; on 12 Dec 95, he received  a
Letter of Counseling (LOC) for a phase violation; on  26  Jan  96,  he
received an LOC for failing a room inspection and  having  a  security
violation; on 27 Feb 96, he received an LOR for a phase violation on 3
Feb 96; on 15 Feb 96, he failed a room inspection and received an AETC
Form 341; on 11 Mar 96, he received an LOR for not being at his  place
of duty as the Charge of Quarters on 5 Mar 96; and, on 14 Mar  96,  he
received an LOR for entering two females’ room while on  duty  as  the
Charge of Quarters.  The applicant was advised of his  rights  in  the
matter and that a general discharge would be recommended.

In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated  20  Mar  96,  the
office of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  file  was  legally
sufficient and recommended that the applicant  be  discharged  with  a
general discharge.

On 26 Mar 96, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge  action
and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.

On 27 Mar 96, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI
36-3208 (Misconduct)  and  furnished  a  general  discharge.   He  was
assigned an RE code of 2B (Separated with a  general  or  under  other
than honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge).   The  applicant  was
credited with 7 months, and 26 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP  recommended  denial  indicating   that   based   on   the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation, and was within  the  sound  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  According to AFPC/DPPRSP, the applicant did not submit any
new evidence nor  did  he  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in the discharge  processing.   He  also  provided  no  facts
warranting a change in his discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

EXAMINER'S NOTE: An Air Force evaluation pertaining to the RE code was
not received; however, prior to forwarding the case to the  Board  the
Air Force determined that the RE code assigned is correct.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  31
Oct 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We note that  the  Secretary  of
the  Air  Force  has  statutory  authority  to  promulgate  rules  and
regulations governing the administration of the  Air  Force.   In  the
exercise of that authority, the Secretary has determined that  members
separated from the Air Force would be furnished an RE code  predicated
upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and  circumstances  of   their
separation.  The evidence of record reflects that  the  applicant  was
involuntarily separated from the Air Force because of misconduct.   As
a result, he was given a general discharge and assigned an RE code  of
2B (separated with a general  or  UOTHC  discharge).   Therefore,  the
applicant’s  RE  code  apparently  was  appropriately   assigned   and
accurately reflected the circumstances of his separation, and, we find
no evidence to indicate that the assigned RE code was  in  error.   In
view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on  the
applicant’s request that his RE code of 2B be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2003-03186 in Executive Session on 2 Dec 03, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2003-
03186 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 17 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair