RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00077
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Separation Program Designator (SPD) be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The separation code on his DD 214 is JKL.  It has been brought to  his
attention that JKL is sexual perversion or shirking.   His  separation
code  was  supposed  to  be  misconduct.   This  has  been  negatively
reflecting  upon  him  during  several   application   processes   for
employment.  His discharge had nothing to do with anything of a sexual
nature or shirking.  He feels as though there was a clerical oversight
or error when completing the DD 214.  At the time of discharge,  while
the paperwork was being filled out, he questioned the meaning  of  the
alphabetized separation code and he was told that he  didn’t  need  to
know.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits two copies of his DD  Form
214, and a page from the listing of the SPD codes.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 December 1999 for  a
period of four years, in the grade of airman.   He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of airman first class.  He received one EPR,  in
which the evaluation was “5.”

On  21  February  2002,  the  commander  notified  him  that  he   was
recommending an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge  under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen,
paragraph   5.52,   for   attempting   to    wrongfully    use    3,4-
methylenedioxymethamphetamine or  some  derivative  thereof,  commonly
known as  ecstasy,  a  Schedule  I  controlled  substance.   For  this
offense, he had received punishment pursuant to  Article  15,  Uniform
Code of Military Justice, which included reduction  to  the  grade  of
airman and 15 days of extra duty.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
his understanding of his right to  consult  with  counsel  and  submit
statements in his behalf.  He also indicated he understood  that  this
action may result in his discharge from the Air Force  with  an  under
honorable conditions  (general)  discharge.   The  base  legal  office
reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the under
honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge  without   probation   and
rehabilitation (P&R).  The discharge authority approved the separation
and ordered an under honorable conditions (general) discharge  without
P&R.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 5 March 2002  under  the
provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of   Airmen
(misconduct), and received an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge  with  a  separation  code  of  JKL   (misconduct)   and   a
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B.  He served  two  years,  two
months and seven days on active duty.

On 22 April  2003,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered and denied  the  applicant’s  request  for  an  upgrade  of
discharge to honorable, a change to the reason and authority  for  the
discharge, and a change to his reenlistment code.  A copy of the AFDRB
hearing record is attached.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In reference  to  the  applicant’s  contention  that  SPD  code  “JKL”
indicates he was separated  for  “sexual  perversion”  or  “shirking”,
AFPC/DPPRS states, in fact, JKL indicates “misconduct.”  Additionally,
AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.52, stipulates that  airmen  are  subject  to
discharge for misconduct based on the commission of a serious  offense
and includes other offenses such  as:   Sexual  Perversion  (paragraph
5.52.1), Prolonged Unauthorized Absence (paragraph 5.52.2), and  Other
Serious Offenses (paragraph 5.52.3).  In this case, the reason for his
discharge was that on or about 1 September 2000 and  on  or  about  31
January    2001,    he    attempted    to    wrongfully    use    3,4-
methylenedioxymethamphetamine or  some  derivative  thereof,  commonly
known as ecstasy.

They recommend denial of the applicant’s request.   They  are  of  the
opinion that the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  discharge
was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

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

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 February 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  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 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;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 22 April 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

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









The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number,
BC-2004-00077, was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Feb 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.




                             ROBERT S. BOYD
                             Panel Chair