RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01211
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation (Fraudulent Entry into Military  Service
- Drug Abuse) and reenlistment eligibility (RE)  code  (2C)  be  changed  to
allow him to enlist in the military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His encounter with drug use was experimental.  He was  not  entered  into  a
rehab program nor did he have a drug problem.   He  was  young  and  made  a
mistake.  He has since matured, is now married, and would like to enlist  in
the military and serve his country.

In support of the application, the applicant submits his  application.   The
applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 March 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the  age
of 18 in the grade of Airman Basic (E-1) for a period of four (4) years.

Prior to his enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force,  on  7  July  1994,  the
applicant  indicated,  among  other  things,  that  he  had  never  used  or
experimented  with  any  illegal  drugs  or  narcotics.   Later,  he   again
indicated that he  had  not  used  any  illegal  drugs  since  his  original
submission.  On 16 March 1995, the applicant  indicated  on  his  USAF  Drug
Certificate he had used marijuana on one occasion in August 1994.

On 24 March 1995, 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  Fraudulent  Entry.   The
applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and waived his  right  to
submit a statement in his own behalf.  The commander thereafter initiated  a
recommendation for the applicant’s separation.

In a legal review of the discharge  case  file,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate
found the file was legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant  be
separated from the service with an entry  level  separation.   On  28  March
1995, the  discharge  authority  approved  the  recommended  discharged  and
directed the applicant be discharged for  the  reasons  recommended  by  his
commander.

On  30  March  1995,  the  applicant  was  discharged  under  AFI   36-3208,
Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service, Drug Abuse, with an  uncharacterized
entry-level separation, and an RE code of 2C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   based   on   the
documentation on file in the master personnel  records,  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation, and the discharge was within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge   authority.    DPPRS   notes   airmen   are   given   entry-level
separation/uncharacterized  service  characterization  when  separation   is
initiated  in  the  first  180  days  of  continuous  active  service.   The
Department of Defense determined if a member served less than  180  days  of
continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the  service
to characterize their limited service.  DPPRS states the applicant  did  not
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in
the discharge processing, and did not provide any facts warranting a  change
to the character of service or his  reenlistment  eligibility  code.   DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  Evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 14 May  2004.   As  of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of injustice.  Although the RE code assigned at the  time  of  the
applicant’s separation was correct, based on  the  facts  and  circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s discharge and his keen  desire  to  reenter  the
armed forces, the Board majority believes it would be an injustice  for  him
to continue to suffer the adverse effects of an RE code  that  forever  bars
his  reentry  into  the  armed  forces.   In  view  of  this  fact  and   in
consideration of the applicant’s age and apparent immaturity at the time  of
his  enlistment,  the  Board  majority  believes  he  should  be  given  the
opportunity to apply for enlistment  by  changing  his  RE  code  to  3K,  a
waiverable  code.   The  applicant  should  be  aware  that  this  does  not
guarantee his automatic reentry into the service.  The determination  as  to
whether or not the RE code should be waived would be based on the  needs  of
the service to which he applies.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of  error  or  injustice  that  would  warrant  a  change  to  his
narrative reason  for  separation.   Notwithstanding  the  Board  majority’s
belief that the applicant’s RE code should  be  changed,  evidence  has  not
been provided which would lead us to conclude that his narrative reason  for
separation was inappropriate.  The record clearly supports the action  taken
and we are not inclined, on the basis of the evidence provided,  to  correct
the narrative reason for the applicant’s separation based on  clemency.   In
view of the above, and in the absence of persuasive evidence,  this  portion
of his request 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  30
March 1995, his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code was 3K.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2004-
01211 in Executive Session on 28 October 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

By majority vote, Ms. Maust and Mr. Maglio voted to  grant  the  applicant’s
request for a change of RE code.  Mr. Peterson voted  to  deny  the  request
but elected not to submit a minority report.  All members voted to deny  the
applicant’s request for a change to the  reason  for  his  separation.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 04.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 May 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair





AFBCMR BC-2004-01211




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that at the time of his
discharge on 30 March 1995, his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code was 3K.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency