RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  2004-00719
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation and reenlistment (RE)  codes  be  changed  to  allow  him  to
reenlist into any branch of military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code does not properly reflect the entire character of  his  military
service, but is the result of one main incident at the end  of  his  career.
He was expeditiously removed from military service to prevent his appeal  of
the discharge, and  was  not  provided  proper  legal  guidance  during  the
discharge process.  He was advised that this was not a permanent  assignment
code, and he would be eligible  to  reenlist  within  six  months.   He  was
advised that the discharge and  code  were  not  permanent  or  punitive  in
nature, and could be reclassified  with  minimal  effort.   He  believes  he
deserves another opportunity to serve.  He has learned  and  grew  from  the
mistakes he made during his five and one-half years of service.

In support of the application, the applicant submits a letter from  counsel.
 The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of  Airman
Basic (E-1) on 24 April 1996.  He was promoted to the grade of Airman  First
Class on 1 December 1997, and reduced to the grade of Airman on 15  February
1997.  He was then progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  Senior  Airman
with a date of rank of 5 August 1999.   He  was  reduced  to  the  grade  of
Airman  First  Class  on  18  Dec  2000.   He  received  four  (4)  Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs).  The following  is  a  resume  of  his  Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs), commencing with the report closing  23  December
1997.



            PERIOD ENDING    PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

            23 Dec 1997      3
             4 Oct 1998      3
             4 Oct 1999 (SrA)     2
             9 Apr 2000      3

On 5 February 1997, the  applicant  wrongly  entered  the  dormitory  living
quarters of a member of the opposite sex.  For this action, he was  punished
under Article 15, UCMJ, and was reduced to the grade of airman, was  ordered
to forfeit $505.00 pay per month for two (2)  months  (suspended),  and  was
given 30 days of correctional custody.   On  9  June  1997,  he  received  a
Letter of Counseling (LOC) for performing a  wheel  bearing  inspection  and
repack without using a Technical Order (TO).

On 1 July 1997, he received an  LOC  for  failing  to  report  at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  On 12 August 1997,  he  received
an LOC for requesting the use of a  comp  day  he  had  not  earned.   On  3
September 1997, he received  a  LOC  for  failing  to  report  at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

On 17 August 1998, 9 September 1998, 23 August 1999, 8  September  1999,  17
July 2000,  and  4  October  2000,  respectively,  he  received  Letters  of
Counseling for failing to report at the time  prescribed  to  his  appointed
place of duty.

On 23 October 2000, he received an LOC  for  the  unlawful  use  of  chewing
tobacco inside a military facility.  On 18 December 2000,  he  was  punished
under Article 15, UCMJ, and reduced to the grade of airman first  class  for
being  disrespectful  in  language  towards  a   superior   non-commissioned
officer.

On 28 February 2001, the applicant’s commander notified the  applicant  that
he was recommending the applicant be separated from the Air Force under  the
provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI  36-3208  for  misconduct  involving  minor
disciplinary   infractions.    The   applicant   acknowledged   receipt   of
notification, and provided a statement in his own behalf.

In a legal review of the discharge  case  file,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate
found the file legally sufficient and  recommended  that  the  applicant  be
separated with an under honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge  without
the offer of probation and rehabilitation.

On 9 March  2001  the  applicant  was  issued  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge.  The separation code  “JKN”  and  RE  code  “2B”  are
directly related to the reason and authority for  his  separation.   He  had
served 4 years, 10 months and 23 days.

On 26 June 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board  reviewed  and  denied
the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states the documentation on file  in
the master personnel records, and the discharge  were  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   The
Air Force Discharge Review Board had previously  reviewed  the  evidence  of
record and had the same conclusions.   The  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence or identify any errors or injustice that occurred in the  discharge
processing, nor did  he  provide  any  facts  warranting  a  change  to  his
character of service or reenlistment eligibility code.

The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that more  than  half  of  the  Letters  of  Counseling
occurred over a  period  of  more  than  four  years,  and  all  dealt  with
reporting late to duty.  He had contacted and informed his chain of  command
regarding his status, requested guidance, and followed the  direction  given
him by his supervisors.  He was misguided and misinformed on the  importance
of calling to report his late arrival to his superiors,  however  recognizes
that he was still at fault.  In regards to disrespecting  a  noncommissioned
officer (NCO), he still maintains  that  the  NCO  provoked  him.   Per  the
advice of his Anger Management counselor, he asked to be  removed  from  the
hostile environment, but was denied.  He  accepts  full  responsibility  for
not maintaining his composure.  He would  like  a  second  chance  to  prove
himself, and asks that he be  allowed  to  demonstrate  his  commitment  and
dedication to his country and the armed services again.  (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice warranting  changes  to  the  applicant’s
reenlistment code and narrative reason for his separation.  Contrary to  his
assertion that the decision to affect his separation based  on  an  isolated
incident, the record reveals that shortly  after  his  entry  into  the  Air
Force, he began  to  accrue  a  record  of  minor  disciplinary  infractions
against the good order and discipline of the service.   Absent  evidence  by
the applicant  showing  the  information  in  his  discharge  case  file  is
erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or  his  commanders  abused
their discretionary authority, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation
of the Air Force office 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.   Therefore,  we  find  no  basis  to  favorably
consider the applicant’s request to change the separation and  RE  codes  he
received because of his discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

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 29 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
            Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2004-00719:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 2004, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/DPPRS, dated 25 March 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 April 04.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 22 April 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair