RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00140
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told by his commander and the separation  office  that  he  would  be
able to come back in the military.  However, when he tried  to  reenter  the
service, he was told he could not come back because of his RE code.

There were no supporting  documents  submitted.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force  in  the  grade
of airman first class (E-3) on 21 July 1999 for a period of four years.   He
was reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1), with a date  of  rank  (DOR)
of 21 June 2000, pursuant to an Article 15.

On 29 June 2000, the applicant  received  notification  that  he  was  being
recommended  for  discharge  for  a  pattern  of  misconduct;  specifically,
conduct prejudicial to good order and  discipline.   During  the  period  28
January 2000 through 21 June 2000, the applicant  received  four  counseling
sessions, five Letters  of  Reprimand,  two  Article  15s  and  one  vacated
Article 15 (refer to Exhibit C for  details).   The  applicant  acknowledged
receipt of the notification,  waived  his  option  to  consult  counsel  and
declined to submit any written statement in his  behalf.   On  7 July  2000,
the discharge authority approved the  recommended  separation  and  directed
that the applicant be issued a general discharge.

The applicant received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge  on
12 July 2000 under the provisions  of  AFI  36-3208  (misconduct).   He  had
completed a total of 11 months and 22 days of active duty  service  and  was
serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the  time  of  discharge.   He
received an RE Code of 2B, which defined means "Separated with a general  or
under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge."
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denial.   DPPRS  identifies  the
applicant’s misconduct as follows:

      1.    Letter of Counseling (LOC) (28 Jan 00) - failure to  go  to  his
appointed place of duty at his scheduled time.

      2.    LOR (4 Feb 00) - underage drinking.

      3.    Article 15 (17 Feb 00) - signing a false official statement  and
wrongfully endeavored to impede an investigation, on or about 1 Feb 00.

      4.    Verbal counseling - received three Armed Forces Traffic  Tickets
for no car registration, no car insurance and for failing to stop at a  stop
sign.

      5.    LOR (5 Apr 00) - disobeyed an order from his doctor on or  about
28 Mar 00 and on or about 30 Mar 00.

      6.    LOR (17 Apr 00) - failure to stop at a stop sign,  on  or  about
28 Mar 00; driving in an unsafe manner while driving a  government  vehicle,
on or about 5 Apr 00; and, failure to stop at a stop sign in  a  residential
area, on or about 11 Apr 00.

      7.    Verbal counseling and government license revoked (20 Apr  00)  -
driving in an erratic manner.

      8.    Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment (3 May 00) -  being
derelict in the performance of his duties when he failed to obey  a  traffic
law while driving a government vehicle by turning left at a red light.

      9.    LOR (11 May 00) - being  derelict  in  the  performance  of  his
duties when he looked like he was sleeping while at  work;  and,  for  being
disrespectful to an airman.

      10.   Verbal counseling (16 May  00)  -  receiving  two  Armed  Forces
Traffic Tickets for breaking tread and driving on an expired license.

      11.   Letter of Reprimand (LOR) (5 Jun 00) -  using  provoking  speech
and/or gestures directly at an on-duty security force member.

      12.   Article 15 (21 Jun 00) - failure to go to  his  appointed  place
of duty at the scheduled time.

DPPRS states that, based on the documentation on  file,  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation.  Applicant did not submit  any  evidence  or  identify
any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  The  HQ
AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  applicant  on  20
February 2004 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.  Applicant’s contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, we are unpersuaded that the applicant has been  the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  At the time members are separated from the  Air  Force,
they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of  their  service
and circumstances of their separation.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding  the
applicant’s separation, the RE  code  issued  was  in  accordance  with  the
appropriate  directives.   Therefore,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which   to
recommend favorable action on 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(s) 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 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

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2004-00140.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 04.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Feb 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Feb 04.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair