RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00732

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C  be  changed  so  that  he  may
reenter the service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 12 June 2003, he appeared before the Air Force  Discharge  Review  Board,
and is very pleased and grateful  with  the  upgrade  of  his  character  of
service from a general (under honorable conditions) discharge to  honorable.
 He still finds it difficult to reenlist due to his reentry code.

In support of his appeal, he submitted a personal letter, a copy of DD  Form
293 and supporting documentation, divorce decree,  copy  of  the  Air  Force
Discharge Review Board Hearing findings, and 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  September  1992  for  a
period of four years.  Applicant was discharged from the  Air  Force  on  26
June 1995 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation  of
Airmen (misconduct) with an RE code of 2C and  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge. He served 2 years, 9 months  and  16  days  of  total
active military service.

On  5  June  1995,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  the  he  was
recommending  discharge  from  the  Air   Force   for   minor   disciplinary
infractions  and  commission  of  a  serious  offense.   The  commander  was
recommending  applicant  receive  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge base on the following:

On 11 June 1993, he received Letter of Counseling for failing  to  attend  a
Director of Personnel  Call  despite  the  fact  that  it  was  a  mandatory
formation; On 22 October 1993, he received Letter of Counseling for  failing
to attend a morning workout session that was mandatory; On 26 October  1994,
he received an Article  15  for  disobeying  a  lawful  order  issued  by  a
noncommissioned officer  not  to  use  official  telephones  for  unofficial
calls; On 30 January 1995, he received Letter of  Counseling  for  being  15
minutes late for work after being briefed previously  on  the  necessity  of
arriving at work  on-time;  On  1  March  1995,  he  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for failing to report for duty at the required time;  On  21
April 1995, he received Letter of Counseling for parking in a parking  stall
designated specifically for customer parking only;  On  28  April  1995,  he
received a LOR for violating  the  trust  that  was  given  to  him  by  his
supervisor by informing an individual that she would  be  discharged;  On  1
May 1995, he received  Letter  of  Admonishment  for  failing  to  attend  a
mandatory Personal Financial Management Program appointment; and  on  2  May
1995, he received a  LOR  for  initiating  a  physical  altercation  between
himself and his wife, and for being involved in  a  mutual  assault  between
himself and his wife.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge  on  5  June
1995 and indicated he understood his rights to consult  with  legal  counsel
and submit statements in  his  own  behalf.   On   8  June  1995,  applicant
submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The  base  legal  office  reviewed
the case and found it  legally  sufficient  to  support  the  discharge  and
recommended  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge   without
probation and rehabilitation.

On 30 December 2002, applicant submitted an application  to  the  Air  Force
Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB)  requesting  his  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  The  AFDRB  considered  all
the evidence of record and concluded there  was  sufficient  mitigation  and
extenuation in the applicant’s circumstances at  the  time  to  substantiate
upgrading the discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason  for
separation.  However, the  AFDRB  determined  the  applicant’s  reenlistment
(RE) code would not be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial stating the discharge was consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation,  and
was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The AFDRB  previously
reviewed all  the  evidence  of  record  and  concluded  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation; within the discretion of the discharge authority;  and
that the applicant was provided full administrative due  process.   However,
the board further concluded that the overall quality of applicant’s  service
was more  accurately  reflected  by  an  honorable  discharge.   Applicant’s
characterization of discharge was  changed  from  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge to  honorable,  but  no  change  to  the  reenlistment
eligibility code was warranted.  Applicant did not submit  any  evidence  or
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge  processing
and he provided no facts warranting a change  his  reenlistment  eligibility
code.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  26
March 2004 for review and comment 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of injustice.  While the RE code assigned to the applicant at  the
time of his separation was technically correct and in  accordance  with  the
applicable instructions,  we believe it would be an  injustice  for  him  to
continue to suffer its effects in the way  of  enlistment  opportunities  in
the armed forces.  In view of the totality of the circumstances  present  in
this case and in light of the  AFDRB’s  decision  to  change  the  narrative
reason for separation and upgrade his discharge  to  honorable,  we  believe
that he should be given the opportunity to apply for enlistment. Whether  or
not he is successful will depend  on  the  needs  of  the  service  and  our
recommendation in no way guarantees that he will be  allowed  to  return  to
any branch of the service.  Therefore, his RE code of 2C should  be  changed
to  3K,  a  code  that  can  be  waived   for   prior   service   enlistment
consideration.

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 issues  involved.   Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of his  discharge  on  26
June 1995, he was issued a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “3K”.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2004-00732
in Executive Session on 3 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
            Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
            Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:


     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Mar 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Mar 04.




                                  GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                  Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-00732




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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that at the time of his
discharge on 26 June 1995,  he was issued a reenlistment eligibility (RE)
code of “3K”.







  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency