RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01780
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The “2B” reenlistment eligibility (RE) code he received be changed  to
allow him to enlist in the Army.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code is wrong.  He was told when he separated he would be  able
to join another branch of service.  Some Army servicemembers told  him
his discharge did not warrant a “2B.”

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 23  April  1997
for a period of four years as an airman basic.

On 24 November 1997, the applicant was notified by his commander  he
was  being  recommended  for  a  discharge  for  minor  disciplinary
infractions.  The commander cited  the  following  reasons  for  the
discharge:

      a.  On 16 October 1997, the applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand  (LOR)  for  on  diverse  occasions  in  September   1997,
violating phase restrictions  on  opposite  sex  visitation  in  the
dormitory.  The applicant further abused his  position  as  a  Green
Rope by using the master key to enter a female’s room for other than
official business.

      b.  On 31 October 1997, the applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Counseling (LOC) for missing physical training formation.

      c.  The applicant received a LOC on 31 October 1997, for twice
failing a room inspection.

      d.  On 6 November 1997, the applicant received an  Article  15
for failing to  report  for  mandatory  formation,  violating  phase
restrictions by wearing civilian clothes, driving a privately  owned
vehicle (POV),  leaving  the  base,  and  making  a  false  official
statement by altering the CQ log on 24 and 26 October 1997.

      e.  On 12 November 1997, the applicant  received  an  LOR  for
reporting to Remedial Military  Training  on  8 November  1997  with
alcohol on his breath and missing formation on 11 November 1997.

The commander advised the applicant of  his  right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that legal counsel had been obtained to assist him; and to
submit statements in his own behalf, or waive the above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action
that he employed various rehabilitation  measures  in  an  attempt  to
rehabilitate the applicant, all of which failed.  He further stated in
the  midst  of  nonjudicial  punishment  the  applicant  continued  to
flagrantly disregard rules and regulations.

On 1 December 1997, after consulting with counsel, applicant invoked
his right to submit a statement.

On 11 December 1997, the discharge authority directed the applicant be
discharged  with   a   general   discharge   without   probation   and
rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 15 December 1997, in the grade of  airman
with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, in accordance
with AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  He served a total of 7 months and  23
days of active service.   He  received  an  RE  code  of  “2B”  which
indicates the applicant was involuntarily separated with a general or
under other than honorable conditions discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states the applicant has not  submitted  any  evidence  nor
identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the processing of
his discharge.  Based upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,
they believe his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulations  of  that  time.
Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  He also did not
provide any facts to warrant an upgrade of his  discharge.   Based  on
the information and evidence provided they recommend  the  applicant's
request be denied (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
25 June 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 excuse the failure of 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 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.  After
a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the
circumstances surrounding the  applicant’s  separation,  the  RE  code
issued  was   in   accordance   with   the   appropriate   directives.
Furthermore,  the  applicant  has  not  provided   any   evidence   to
substantiate the processing  of  his  discharge  or  the  RE  code  he
received were in error or unjust.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-01780  in  Executive  Session  on  19  August  2004,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                       Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 May 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Available Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Jun 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 04.




                                        WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                        Panel Chair