RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02932
                                       INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXX                         HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  general  discharge  be  upgraded  to  honorable  and  his  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The punishment he received was harsh for someone who  wants  to  be  in  the
military.  He has been turned down for many potential jobs  because  of  his
status in the military.  He wishes to serve  this  great  country  again  by
enlisting in the Marine Corps.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of  his  application
to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)  including  attachments  and
copies of his military personnel and medical  records  associated  with  his
discharge.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 February 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at  the
age of 20 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of six years.   He
served as a Security Forces Apprentice.   The  applicant  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 20  August  1999
with a date of rank of 26 March 1999.  He received  one  performance  report
during the period 10 February 1999 through 9 October 2000, with  an  overall
rating of 4.

On 17 December 1999, the applicant received a  Letter  of  counseling  (LOC)
for failure to go to a scheduled appointment.  On 1 March 2000, he  received
a LOC for violating a no-contact order.  On 16 March  2000,  he  received  a
Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for violating a no-contact order.   On  3  October
2000,  the  applicant  received  an  LOC  for  leaving  work  early  without
permission from his supervisor.  On 19 October 2000, he received an LOR  for
being insubordinate towards  a  non-commissioned  officer.   On  31  October
2000, he received an LOR for failing to  have  his  required  equipment  for
duty.  On 5 December 2000, he received an LOC for speeding in base  housing.
 On 2 January  2001,  the  applicant  received  Article  15  punishment  for
wrongfully indulging in intoxicating liquor or drugs incapacitating him  for
the performance of his duties and for failure to go to his  appointed  place
of duty at his scheduled time.  He received punishment of reduction  to  the
grade of airman with a new date of rank of 5  January  2001,  forfeiture  of
$200 pay per month for two months, 15 days extra duty, and a reprimand.

On 16 January 2001,  his  commander  notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending him for a  general  discharge  for  a  pattern  of  misconduct,
specifically  conduct  prejudicial  to  good  order  and  discipline.    The
applicant acknowledged receipt and submitted an appeal  for  reconsideration
on  18  January  2001.   On  19  January  2001,   his   commander   made   a
recommendation to the discharge authority that the applicant be furnished  a
general discharge without probation or rehabilitation.  On 22 January  2001,
the acting staff judge advocate found the case  to  be  legally  sufficient.
On 23  January  2001,  the  discharge  authority  approved  the  recommended
separation and directed that the applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and  rehabilitation
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2.   The  applicant  was
discharged effective  26  January  2001  with  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) characterization of service.  He had served 1  year,  11  months
and 17 days on active duty.  An RE code of 2B (discharged under  general  or
other-than-honorable conditions) was assigned.

The AFDRB considered and  unanimously  denied  the  applicant’s  request  to
upgrade his discharge and RE code on 5 December 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRSP recommends denial.  DPPRSP states the applicant’s discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation in affect at that time.   Additionally,  the  discharge
was within the discretion of the discharge  authority.   The  applicant  did
not provide any facts warranting a change  in  his  discharge,  nor  did  he
submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred
in his discharge processing.  The DPPRSP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant wishes to appear before the Board at no  expense  to  the  Air
Force.  The applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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  was
erroneous, his substantial rights were violated,  or  that  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  The  characterization  of  discharge
and 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
the characterization of discharge or RE Code to be in error or unjust.   We
have noted the supportive statements provided in  the  applicant’s  behalf.
In our opinion, the cited statements are not of  a  sufficient  quality  or
quantity to support approval of the requested relief based on  clemency  in
view of the short period of time he served on active duty and the excessive
amount  of  infractions  he  committed.   Therefore,  the  Board  finds  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought   in   this
application.

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 14 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
            Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
            Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2004-02932
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 04.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Sep 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 04.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 27 Oct 04.




                             ROBERT S. BOYD
                                             Panel Chair