RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01925
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXX                            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B  (involuntarily
discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge) to enable
him to reenter the military.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not deny his actions leading to his discharge, nor does he  claim
that there is an error or injustice on his DD Form  214,  Certificate  of
Release or Discharge From Active Duty.  The military is the only place he
feels he belongs and he would like another chance.  Since his  discharge,
he has matured and learned how he should act and treat others.

In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal
statement and a copy of  his  DD  Form  214.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 June 2000, 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  years.
He was trained as a Security  Forces  Apprentice  and  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of airman first class.  He  received  one  enlisted
performance report (EPR) for the period ending 20 February 2002, in which
the promotion recommendation was “2.”

On 9 January 2001, the applicant received a Letter  of  Counseling  (LOC)
for failure to get permission to go  direct  on  a  closed  net.   On  10
January 2001, he received a LOC for failure to  maintain  a  professional
stature by handling a weapon he was ordered not to handle and spraying  a
senior ranking member with all purpose cleaner.  On 21 February  2001,  a
memorandum for record (MFR)  was  placed  in  the  applicant’s  file  for
abusing his authority as a Security Forces patrolman.   On  27  September
2001, he received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  and  his  Unfavorable
Information File (UIF) was established, for using  provoking  speech  and
abusing his authority as a Security  Forces  member  towards  a  civilian
employee.  On  27  November  2001,  the  applicant  received  Article  15
punishment resulting in his reduction to the grade of airman (suspended),
forfeiture of $150 pay per month for two months, 23 days extra duty,  and
a reprimand, for unlawfully striking another  airman  repeatedly  on  his
face with his fist.  On 26 December 2001, he received an LOR for  failure
to meet dormitory standards during an inspection.  On 27  December  2001,
the applicant received a memorandum suspending his base check cashing and
Military Star account privileges for failing to make necessary payment on
his Military Star Credit account.  On 10 January 2002, he received an LOR
for failure to perform his required duties as a Security Forces member by
allowing a vendor’s vehicle on base without searching  or  recording  the
vehicle in the  visitor’s  log.   On  8  February  2002,  he  received  a
memorandum suspending his Government Travel  Card  for  failure  to  make
payment within 60 days.  On 5 March 2002, the applicant received  an  LOR
for arriving late to work by approximately one hour.  On 22  April  2002,
he received an LOC for failure to meet his dormitory inspection standards
on two occasions.  On 14 May 2002, the  applicant  received  an  LOC  for
failure to wear the proper belt with his  uniform  and  on  one  occasion
failed to wear a belt at all.  On 7 May 2002, his commander  revoked  the
applicant’s authority to  bear  arms.   On  8  May  2002,  the  applicant
received an LOC for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed
place of duty, resulting  in  vacation  of  his  Article  15  Nonjudicial
Punishment, reducing him to the grade of airman, with a new date of  rank
of 27 November 2001.  On 15 June 2002, he received an LOR for failure  to
report for duty at the prescribed time.  On 17 June 2002,  the  applicant
was counseled for being late for work, using his rotating lights  on  his
patrol car but failing to initiate a stop, resisting  to  return  to  his
post after his lunch break, and conducting  searches  of  vehicles  while
talking on his cellular phone.  On 20 June 2002, he received an  LOR  for
having alcoholic beverages in his dorm room while being under the age  of
21.

On 2 July 2002, his commander notified the applicant that  he  was  being
recommended  for  general  discharge  for  engaging  in  a   pattern   of
misconduct, under AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.  On 12 July
2002, after consulting counsel, the applicant submitted  a  statement  in
his own behalf.  On 15 July 2002, his commander signed  a  recommendation
for  the  applicant’s  general  discharge  based  on  minor  disciplinary
infractions, without probation and rehabilitation.  On 26 July 2002,  the
recommendation was found to be legally  sufficient  by  the  Staff  Judge
Advocate.   On  29  July  2002,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the
discharge under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.50,  for
engaging in a  pattern  of  misconduct.   The  applicant  was  discharged
effective 1 August 2002  with  a  under  honorable  conditions  (general)
characterization of service; separation  code  JKA  (misconduct),  and  a
reentry code of 2B (discharged under  general  or  other  than  honorable
conditions).  He had served 2 years, 1 month and 11 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   the   applicant’s
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements
of the discharge regulation and was within the sound  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  The applicant  did  not  provide  any  evidence  or
identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process.
 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  1
July 2004 for review and response 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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant did not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the information in the  discharge  case  file
was  erroneous,  his  substantial  rights  were  violated,  or  that  his
commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The RE code  which  was
issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects  the
circumstances of his separation and we do not find this  code  to  be  in
error or unjust.  The record clearly shows that the applicant experienced
problems maintaining  acceptable  duty  performance  standards.   In  our
estimation, based on the evidence of record, the  applicant’s  separation
was  in  the  best  interests  of  the  Air  Force  and  the  individual.
Furthermore, the applicant has provided no evidence showing that he would
now be able to effectively perform his duties in  the  highly  structured
military environment.  In view of the  foregoing,  we  conclude  that  no
basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request.

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 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 15 September 2004, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
            Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
            Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2004-01925 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 04, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Jun 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.




                                  LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                                   Panel Chair