RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03481
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  of  2C   (involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level  separation
without characterization of service) be changed  to  a  code  which
will enable him to reenlist in another military branch; his DD Form
214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,  be
corrected to reflect an oak leaf cluster (sic) for the  Small  Arms
Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR) in Item 13 and that he completed
the Air Base Ground Defense course in Mar 93.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant did not present any contentions.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 Aug  91,  in  the
grade of airman basic (AB/E-1) for a period of four  years.   Prior
to the events under review, he was promoted to the grade of  airman
first  class  (A1C/E-3).   He  received  two  enlisted  performance
reports with overall promotion recommendations of 3.

On or about 7 Jun 92, while posted as a Gate #2  Sentry,  applicant
wrote several  rude  remarks  as  well  as  made  several  drawings
depicting certain parts of the anatomy and a swastika, for which he
received a letter of reprimand.

On or about 1 Apr 93, applicant was derelict in the performance  of
his duties by failing to maintain his dormitory room in  accordance
with local base regulations, for which  he  received  a  letter  of
reprimand.

On or about 9 Apr 93, applicant was derelict in the performance  of
his duties by willfully failing to maintain his dormitory room, for
which he received an Article 15.  The Article 15 punishment imposed
on him consisted of a suspended reduction to the  grade  of  airman
and 45 days of extra duty.

On or about 8 Sep 93, he received an Article 15 for failure  to  go
at the prescribed  time  to  his  appointed  place  of  duty.   His
punishment consisted of vacation of his suspended reduction to  the
grade of airman with a new effective  date  and  date  of  rank  of
20 Apr 93.

On  15  Oct  93,   the   squadron   section   commander   initiated
administrative  discharge  action   against   the   applicant   for
misconduct,  specifically,  minor   disciplinary   infractions   as
evidenced by  the  incidents  cited  above.   On  that  same  date,
applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification.

On 15 Oct 93, after consulting with  counsel,  applicant  submitted
statements in his own  behalf,  requested  to  be  retained  or  if
discharged, that he would like to receive an  honorable  discharge.
On 20 Oct 93, the staff judge advocate found the case to be legally
sufficient to support discharge and recommended a general discharge
without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).

On 25 Oct 93, the discharge authority  approved  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge, without P&R.

On 1 Nov 93, applicant  was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of
AFR 39-10, with service characterized as general  (under  honorable
conditions),  and  was  issued  Reenlistment  Eligibility  code  2B
(involuntarily separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10  with  a
general discharge).  He was credited with 2 years, 2 months, and 12
days of active duty service.

Applicant was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Air Force
Overseas Long Tour Ribbon, Small Arms Expert  Marksmanship  Ribbon,
and the Air Force Training Ribbon.

On 26  Aug  03,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered and granted the applicant’s request for  an  upgrade  of
his discharge to honorable and to change his reason  for  discharge
to  Secretarial  Authority.   Based   on   the   upgrade   of   the
characterization of his discharge,  the  applicant’s  RE  code  was
administratively changed to 2C (involuntarily separated  under  AFR
39-10 with an honorable discharge).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR reviewed this application and recommended denial.  On
20 Nov 03, applicant was asked to clarify his request, as to  which
award should be corrected to show he was entitled to  an  oak  leaf
cluster.  Applicant explained he qualified as Expert  during  basic
training and again in technical training school.

He was further advised that the SAEMR has a  bronze  service  star,
not an oak leaf cluster, for subsequent award.  Applicant  has  not
provided any  documentation  to  substantiate  his  claim  that  he
qualified as Expert with both the M-16 and his  unit’s  handgun  of
issue.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at  Exhibit
C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAT recommended denial of  the  applicant’s  request  for
credit for the Air Force Ground  Defense-Level  II  course  on  his
DD Form 214.  On 13 Nov 03, they requested the applicant provide  a
training certificate for completion of the course, but he  has  not
responded.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They  found  the  discharge  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive   requirements    of    the    discharge    regulation.
Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority.  They also noted that  the  applicant  did
not submit any new evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing nor did  he  provide  any
facts warranting a change to his RE code.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant
on 2 Apr 04 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).

___________________________________________________________________

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 warranting a change
to the applicant’s RE code.  We  took  notice  of  the  applicant’s
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,  we
agree with the  opinions  and  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice.   Applicant’s  assigned  RE  code  of  2C
accurately reflects his involuntary separation  with  an  honorable
discharge.  Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of  evidence
that the assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the  governing
regulation, we find no basis  upon  which  to  recommend  favorable
consideration of his request.

4.  Regarding the applicant’s requests  for  award  of  Small  Arms
Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, with bronze service star, and that  his
record be corrected to reflect he completed  the  Air  Base  Ground
Defense-Level II course in March 1993, HQ AFPC/DPPPR  requested  he
provide supporting documentation.  However,  he  did  not  respond.
Should the applicant  provide  documentation  to  substantiate  his
claim, we would be willing to reconsider his petition.  In view  of
the above, we find no basis to recommend granting his requests.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2003-03481 in Executive  Session  on  1  June  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, 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, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 4 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 25 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Mar 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair