RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00327
                       INDEX CODE:  107.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to a more  favorable
code to allow him to enlist in the Air Force Reserves.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC)  discharge  was
upgraded to a under honorable conditions (general)  discharge  his  RE
code was not changed.

Applicant’s complete submission, with an attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 July 1977  for  a
period of six years as an airman basic.

The applicant underwent a random urinalysis on  7  February  1991  and
tested positive for marijuana.

On 9 April 1991, the applicant was charged  in  violation  of  Article
112a, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UMCJ) for  wrongful  use  of
marijuana on or about 6 January 1991 and on or about 5 February  1991.
On 25 April 1991, the applicant’s case was referred to a general court-
martial.

On 1 May 1991, after consulting  with  legal  counsel,  the  applicant
submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.


A legal review was conducted in which the staff judge  advocate  (SJA)
recommended the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial  by
court-martial  be  approved  and  he  be  discharged  with  an   UOTHC
discharge.

On 10 May 1991,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  applicant’s
request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

On 24 May 1991, the applicant was discharged under the  provisions  of
AFR 39-10, Chapter 4, (request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial), and was issued an under other than honorable discharge  with
an RE code of 2B which denotes  the  servicemember  was  involuntarily
separated under  AFR  39-10,  with  a  general  or  under  other  than
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He served 13 years, 10 months
and 17 days of active service.

After reviewing the applicable instruction, AFI  36-2606,  it  appears
the RE code is correct.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS states based upon the documentation in  the  applicant's
records, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   Also,  the
discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge  authority.


The  AFDRB  previously  reviewed  all  the  evidence  of  record   and
determined  the  applicant’s  discharge  was   consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation
and was within the discretion of the discharge authority  and  he  was
provided  full  administrative  due  process.    The   AFDRB   further
determined  the  applicant’s  overall  quality  of  service  was  more
accurately  reflected  by  a  under  honorable  conditions   (general)
discharge.

Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any evidence  to  identify
any errors or injustices that may have occurred in the  processing  of
his discharge.  Nor did he provide any facts to warrant an upgrade  of
his discharge or change his RE code.  Based on the  evidence  provided
DPPRS recommends the requested relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
19 March 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no  response
has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice.  Applicant’s  contentions  are
duly noted; however, we are not persuaded 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.  When the applicant was discharged he received an RE  code
of “2B” which indicated the applicant was involuntarily separated with
a general or UOTHC discharge.  The applicant’s contends  his  RE  code
should have been upgraded when his discharge was upgraded.  The  AFDRB
reviewed the applicant’s discharge and determined the discharge should
be upgraded based on  the  applicant’s  overall  quality  of  service,
however, the discharge upgrade still fell under the purview of the  RE
code “2B”.  Therefore, we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend
favorable action on 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 Docket  Number  BC-2004-
00327 in Executive Session on 12 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                             Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                             Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                             Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Mar 04.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair