RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03584
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  of  2B  be  changed  to  a
waiverable code.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He and his first squad leader did not get along right from the  start.
This incident started a series of events that eventually  led  to  his
discharge.  Since his separation he has been  going  to  school  part-
time, working in a bank  and  as  a  personal  trainer  at  a  fitness
facility.  He is now 26 years old and by  2004  will  be  earning  his
associates degree.  He has taught himself two languages,  Spanish  and
German.  He is currently married with his first child on the way.

In support of the appeal, applicant  provides  a  personal  statement,
three character references and a copy of his DD Form 214.  Applicant's
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11  April  1996  for  a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  or
airman.

On 1 May 1997, the  commander  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending him for  discharge  for  minor  disciplinary  infractions
(misconduct) with a general discharge.  Bases  for  the  action  were:
Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and placement of the LOR in the  Unfavorable
Information File (UIF) for failing to report to his appointed place of
duty on or about 1 January  1997  and  on  or  about  3 January  1997;
Article 15 and placement of the Article 15  in  the  UIF  for  falling
asleep on duty on 19 December 1996 (punishment consisted of  reduction
to the grade of airman basic); LOR and placement of the LOR in the UIF
for falling asleep on duty on 5 November 1996; verbal  counseling  for
inadvertently driving into a chain that held down scaffolding;  Letter
of Counseling (LOC) for failing to take a pretest for ART/SART leader;
and LOC for failing to clean a weapon used during the Wing Exercise on
12 and 14 October 1996.  Applicant submitted a  statement.   The  base
legal office reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to
support   the   discharge.    They   agreed   with   the   commander’s
recommendation for discharge and recommended  applicant  be  separated
from  the  service  with  an  under  honorable  conditions   (general)
discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).

The applicant had been initially served an administrative discharge in
January of 1997, but his discharge was withdrawn after he was referred
to Wilford Hall for a sleeping disorder.  He received an evaluation at
Wilford Hall where he was found to have poor sleep habits.

The Discharge Authority approved the separation on  16  May  1997  and
ordered a general discharge without P&R.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 16  May  1997  under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen,
(misconduct) and received  an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge.  He served one year, one month and six days on active duty.
 He was assigned a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B (Separated
with  a  general  or   under-other-than-honorable-conditions   (UOTHC)
discharge).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  states  that  the  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge
authority.  A complete copy of the evaluation is attached  at  Exhibit
C.

AFPC/DPPAE states the RE code of 2B was correct.  A complete  copy  of
their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27  February  2004,  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As
of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, the majority of the Board is  not  persuaded  that
the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of
an injustice.  His contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the
detailed comments  provided  by  the  appropriate  Air  Force  offices
adequately address those allegations.  The Board majority specifically
made note of the fact that, in his response to the recommendation  for
discharge submitted on 5 May 1997, the applicant stated, “I feel  that
the Air Force is definitely a good thing for some people, but just not
for me.  I feel that my personality does not meet the standards  of  a
military member.  I am not good with authority, but I  am  working  on
it.  I honestly do not feel that I am compatible with  the  Air  Force
way of life.”  In view of the information in the record leading up  to
his separation, the Board majority believes that this  was  an  astute
observation by  the  applicant  and,  even  though  he  apparently  is
performing successfully as a part time military  member,  he  has  not
provided  persuasive  evidence  showing  that  his  reaction  to   the
restrictive military  environment  on  a  full  time  basis  would  be
different today than it was seven years ago.  Therefore, the  majority
of the Board agrees with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
and adopts their rationale as the basis for the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice In view  of
the above, the  majority  finds  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend
favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 22 April 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
            Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
            Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Mr. Boyd voted to correct the records and submits  a  Minority  Report
for review.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Feb 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 25 Feb 04.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Feb 04.
      Exhibit F.  Minority Report, dated 29 Apr 04.


                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair






AFBCMR BC-2003-03584
INDEX CODE:  112.00




MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency



AFBCMR BC-2003-03584
INDEX CODE:  112.00



MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY

SUBJECT:  , DOCKET NO. BC-2003-03584

      There was no error or injustice committed at the time of Applicant’s
processing for discharge, but he has demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation
for a grant on grounds of clemency.  Failure to do so constitutes an
injustice and is not in the best interests of the United States.

      Applicant’s offenses were concentrated in a three-month period from
Oct 96 to Jan 97.  The most severe of these was an Article 15 for sleeping
at his post (Applicant was a security policeman on guard duty).
Applicant’s commission of serious breaches of discipline and good order
should not be minimized.  His commander at the time no doubt took into
consideration the potential mitigating circumstances of age, immaturity,
and problems at home.  The fact remains Applicant was a 19-year old ill-
equipped to handle the unexpected demands of military life aggravated by
the sexual molestation of his sister.  He felt he had no option but to
leave the military.  In responding to his recommendation for discharge, he
stated that his “personality does not meet the standards of a military
member” and that he was “incompatible with the Air Force way of life.”
There is no doubt whatsoever Applicant was treated fairly and that he
agreed with the discharge at the time.

      Now, seven years after Applicant by his own admission botched an
opportunity for a military career, he does not appear to be the same
person.  He does not blame others for his own shortcomings.  In his
application to this Board, he states “I know and accept full responsibility
for my actions in the short time I spent in Altus, Oklahoma…I not only let
myself down, I let my squadron and commanders down as well.”  There is no
evasiveness or blame-shifting, showing a commendable degree of maturity.

      Applicant is serving as a cavalry scout in the California National
Guard and requires an upgrade of his discharge to return to active duty.
In today’s world, a soldier in that specialty is likely to deploy to fight
our nation’s battles.  His Recruiting and Retention NCO, a combat arms
veteran of 20 years, attests that Applicant “is highly motivated, trust
worthy and possesses all the characteristics and traits to make an
outstanding soldier, especially in a combat arms related field.”  The
principal at Applicant’s former high school and current school at which his
child is enrolled notes that he has matured and is bright and motivated.
His youth minister also notes his
development, as well as his integrity and leadership ability.  Finally,
Applicant notes his commitment to earning a degree and that he is now
married with a child on the way.  This is not the same troubled young man
who slept at his post.

      The Board will rarely see a case in which an individual has so
demonstrably turned his life around while he is still young enough to
serve.  Applicant’s petition for a waiverable code (suggest 3K, Secretarial
Authority) must be granted not only to let Applicant make amends for his
past misconduct, but to afford a military service the opportunity to judge
for itself whether or not this Applicant, today, meets the standards
demanded of a military member.  To do otherwise does indeed constitute an
injustice.




                                  ROBERT S. BOYD
                                  Panel Chair


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                  FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
(AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Case on

      I have carefully reviewed the circumstances of this case and do not
agree with the recommendation of the majority of the panel that applicant’s
request to have his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B changed to a
waiverable code should be denied.

      After considering the evidence provided for my review, I agree with
the minority member of the panel that the applicant’s request should be
granted.  In this regard, I note the fact that the applicant is serving as
a cavalry scout in the California National Guard, and, the favorable
comments from his Recruiting and Retention NCO, a combat arms veteran of 20
years, voicing his opinion that the applicant is highly motivated,
trustworthy and possesses all the characteristics and traits to make an
outstanding soldier, especially in a combat arms related field.  In view of
this, I believe he should be afforded a second chance to serve.  Therefore,
it is my decision that his RE code should be changed to 3K, which is a code
that can be waived for prior service enlistment consideration, provided he
meets all other requirements for enlistment under an existing prior service
program.




                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency











AFBCMR BC-2003-03584
INDEX CODE:  112.00




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to, be corrected to show that, at the time of his discharge on 16
May 1997, his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code was RE-3K.





                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency