RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02443
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His entry-level separation be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In late 2002, he was charged with two separate  Article  15s,  both
for leaving the base.  He was immature and now realizes that he did
some stupid things that he wished he had not done.  He is not a bad
guy and he did those things in order to relieve some stress.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
a copy of  his  Student  Training  Report  and  his  DD  Form  214,
Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,  dated
19 Dec 02.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  25  Jun  02  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1).

On  12  Dec  02,   the   squadron   section   commander   initiated
administrative discharge action against the  applicant  for  entry-
level  performance  or  conduct.   The  specific  reasons  for  the
proposed action were:

On or about 21 Sep 02, applicant was derelict in the performance of
his duties in that he willfully failed to  refrain  from  consuming
alcohol  while  under  the  legal  drinking  age  of  21  and  from
frequenting a local hotel.  For this  misconduct,  he  received  an
Article 15.  The Article 15 punishment  imposed  on  the  applicant
consisted of forfeiture  of  $250  pay  per  month  for  2  months,
restriction to the limits of the base for 30 days and  30  days  of
extra duty.

On or about 27 Oct 02, he was derelict in the  performance  of  his
duties in that  he  willfully  failed  to  refrain  from  consuming
alcohol while under the legal drinking age of 21, failed to  remain
in the proper military uniform and  failed  to  remain  within  the
limits of the base.  With the intent  to  deceive,  he  made  false
official statements that he did not go off base and that he had not
gone to the hospital or words to that effect.  For this misconduct,
he received an Article 15.  The Article 15  punishment  imposed  on
the applicant consisted of forfeiture of $300 pay,  restriction  to
the limits of the base for 15 days and 15 days of extra duty.

On 16 Dec 02, after consulting with  counsel,  applicant  submitted
statements in his own behalf.  On 17 Dec 02, the Deputy Staff Judge
Advocate found the case  file  legally  sufficient  to  justify  an
administrative discharge for entry level performance or conduct and
recommended that the applicant be discharged  with  an  entry-level
separation.   On  18  Dec  02,  the  discharge  authority  directed
applicant be discharged with an entry-level separation.

On 25 Jun 02, applicant  received  an  uncharacterized  entry-level
separation, by reason of “Entry Level Performance and Conduct,” and
was issued an RE  code  of  2C  (Involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable   discharge;   or    entry-level    separation    without
characterization of service).  He was credited with  5  months  and
25 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial of the applicant’s request.   They
found that the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive   requirements    of    the    discharge    regulation.
Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority.  The applicant  did  not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in  the
discharge processing and he provided no other facts  warranting  an
upgrade of the discharge.

They   also   noted   that    airmen    are    given    entry-level
separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation
is initiated in the first 180 days of  continuous  active  service.
The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a member served  less
than 180 days of continuous service, it  would  be  unfair  to  the
member and the service to characterize their limited service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE reviewed this application and indicated that  the  RE
code of 2C is correct.  Additionally, that the  applicant  did  not
provide any documentation  that  supports  changing  his  RE  code.
Waivers of RE codes for  enlistment  are  considered  and  approved
based  on  the  needs  of  the  respective  military  service   and
recruiting initiatives at the time of the enlistment inquiry.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 21 Nov 03 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing
AFI and we find no evidence to indicate that  his  separation  from
the Air Force was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of  error  in
this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has
been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not  believe
he has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in 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   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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2003-02443 in Executive Session on 7  January  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Albert F. Lowas Jr., Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 6 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Nov 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.




                                   ALBERT F. LOWAS JR.
                                   Panel Chair