RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00933
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL: NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to  a  “1”  category
and his narrative reason for separation be changed  to  allow  him  to
join the Air Force Reserves.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The punishment he received for driving while intoxicated (DWI) was too
harsh based on his excellent performance of service and  the  marginal
level of alcohol in his blood.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
Letter and Record of Proceedings, DD Form 214, Certificate of  Release
or Discharge from Active Duty, AF Form 909, Airman Performance Report,
College Transcript, and a Letter of Recommendation.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 April 1979.  On 9
May 1984, the applicant was notified by  his  commander  that  he  was
recommending that he be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for  minor
disciplinary infractions.  The basis for the action was  on  10  April
1984, he received an Article 15 for driving a car while drunk,  on  12
November 1983, he was counseled for being late for duty, on 17 October
1983, he received an Article 15  for  dereliction  in  performance  of
duties,  on  19  June  1983,  he  was  counseled  for  dereliction  in
performance of duties, on 17 October 1982, he was counseled for  being
late for duty, on 27 February 1982, he was counseled  for  being  late
for duty, on 5 July 1981, he received an Article 15  for  leaving  his
appointed place of duty and being drunk on duty, and on 25 Aril  1980,
he received an Article 15 for being disrespectful  in  language  to  a
superior noncommissioned officer.  He was advised  of  his  rights  in
this matter.  He acknowledged his right to consult counsel, and  after
consulting with counsel elected not to submit statements  in  his  own
behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it  legally
sufficient.   The  discharge  authority  approved  the  discharge  and
directed  that  applicant  be  discharged  with  an  under   honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation  and  rehabilitation.
On 21 June 1984, under the provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative
Separation  of  Airmen,  (misconduct-pattern  of  minor   disciplinary
infractions), with an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge.
He received  an  RE  code  of  2C  “Involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable   discharge;   or    entry    level    separation    without
characterization of service”.  He served 5 years, 2 months and 20 days
total active service.

On 29 April 1985, the applicant submitted an application  to  the  Air
Force Discharge Review Board  (DRB)  requesting  his  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge be  upgraded  to  honorable.   The  DRB
denied his request on the grounds of finding no error or  inequity  to
warrant a change in his discharge.  (Exhibit B)

On 12 November 1999, the applicant submitted an application to the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military  Records  (AFBCMR),  requesting
the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, imposed on 1 May 1984, be
removed from his records and his  general  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.  On 4 August 2000, the  AFBCMR  reviewed  the  evidence  of
record and based on  clemency  directed  the  applicant’s  records  be
changed to show he received  an  honorable  discharge.   However,  the
Board denied his request to set aside the Article 15, choosing not  to
disturb the discretionary judgments of the commanding officer,  absent
a strong showing of abuse of that authority.  (Exhibit C)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  Based upon the documentation in  master
personnel record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  discharge
was within the discretion of the discharge authority.   Applicant  did
not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that
occurred in the discharge processing.  His separation was  involuntary
and he has provided no facts warranting a change to  his  reenlistment
eligibility code or narrative reason for separation.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9
April 04, 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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that relief is  warranted.   At  the  time  the  member  was
separated from the  Air  Force,  he  was  furnished  an  RE  code  and
narrative reason for separation predicated upon  the  quality  of  her
service and the circumstances of her separation.   The  assigned  code
reflects the Air Force's position regarding whether or not,  or  under
what circumstances, he should be allowed to reenlist.  The evidence of
record supports the stated reasons for the applicant's separation from
the Air Force and we are not persuaded that the assigned RE code is in
error or unjust.  In the absence of such evidence we find no basis for
an upgrade of the RE code or a change  in  the  narrative  reason  for
separation.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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-
00933 in Executive Session on 15 July 2004, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James E. Short, Member
                 Mr. Gary G. Sauner, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. AFBCMR Case 99-02995, dated 4 Aug 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Apr 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 04.




      DAVID W. MULGREW
      Panel Chair