RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00421
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  9 AUG 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  narrative  reason  for  separation   and   the   corresponding
separation code on his DD Form 214 be changed from “Misconduct”  to
“Convenience of the Government,” and his  reenlistment  eligibility
(RE)  code  of  2C  (Involuntarily  separated  with  an   honorable
discharge; or entry level separation  without  characterization  of
service) be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His unblemished military record and his entire  discharge  revolved
around a single regrettable civilian mistake, a misdemeanor assault
that he committed on 20 Mar 97.  Aside from this lone  offense,  he
has a clean civilian record.

The stigma of having “misconduct” as the reason for  discharge  has
adversely affected his ability to find employment.

In support of his appeal, applicant provided a personal  statement;
a letter from the T---- Child Care Licensing;  copies  of  earnings
statements; a letter of employment, dated 24 Mar 00; extracts  from
his military personnel records (including AF Form 77,  tdy  orders,
and letters of appreciation, awards and other documents); a copy of
his Air Force Discharge Review  Board  case  file;  a  Parent-Child
Relationship court order, dtd  23  Jul  04,  and  other  supporting
documents.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial  enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air
Force on 22 Mar 95.   He  served  on  continuous  active  duty  and
entered his last enlistment on 6 Jul 98.  His  highest  grade  held
was senior airman.  The record contains three Enlisted  Performance
Reports (EPRs) reflecting overall ratings of (oldest to latest): 4,
5, and 4.

The squadron section commander initiated  administrative  discharge
action against the applicant for a civilian conviction.  The reason
for the proposed action was that on 13 Mar 00, applicant entered  a
plea  of  guilty  in  the  County  Court  for  a  Class  A  Assault
(misdemeanor).   Applicant  assaulted  his  wife  by  pushing   and
slapping her on 23 Mar 97.

On 3 Apr  00,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  discharge
notification.   After  consulting  with   counsel,   he   submitted
statements in his own behalf.  On 5 Apr 00, the squadron  commander
amended his initial recommendation for  discharge  and  recommended
the applicant receive a general  discharge  and  that  he  also  be
considered for probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  On 10  Apr  00,
the staff judge advocate  found  the  case  legally  sufficient  to
support discharge and recommended a general discharge, without P&R.
 The discharge authority approved a general  discharge,  but  found
the applicant was not a suitable candidate for P&R.


On 20 Apr 00, applicant was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3208 by reason of Misconduct, with service characterized  as
general (under honorable conditions), and was issued an RE Code  of
2B.  He was credited with  5 years  and  29  days  of  active  duty
service.

On 11 May 04, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed
all of the evidence of record and concluded  that  the  applicant’s
discharge should be changed to an honorable discharge.   The  AFDRB
denied his request to change his narrative reason  for  separation.
On 28 May 2004, applicant’s record was  administratively  corrected
to reflect an honorable discharge, with a corresponding RE code  of
2C (Exhibit B).

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative
report reflecting only  the  assault  incident  which  led  to  the
applicant’s discharge (Exhibit C).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They found that the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural
and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge   regulation.
Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority.  They also noted that  the  applicant  did
not submit any new evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he  provide  any
facts warranting a change of the narrative reason for discharge and
reenlistment eligibility code.  Accordingly, they  recommended  his
records remain the same.

A complete copy of the Air Force 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 11 Mar 05 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record,  applicant’s
discharge  appears  to  be  in  compliance   with   the   governing
instruction and we find no evidence to indicate that his  discharge
was inappropriate or that  the  stated  reason  for  discharge  and
corresponding   separation   code   are   in   error   or   unjust.
Nevertheless, we believe some form of relief is warranted.   We  do
not condone the behavior which led to  the  applicant’s  discharge;
however, it appears that this was a one-time incident.  Despite his
domestic problems, his performance reports reflect he continued  to
perform his duties in  an  excellent  manner  and  except  for  the
assault  incident,  his  overall  record  of  service   was   good.
Additionally, the  evidence  provided  in  support  of  his  appeal
reflects that he has had a successful transition to  civilian  life
as evidenced by his continuing educational accomplishments and  his
gainful employment as a live-in  family  teacher  in  a  children’s
group home for three years following his discharge.  In view of the
foregoing, and noting that the Air Force Discharge Review Board has
upgraded the characterization of the applicant’s discharge to fully
honorably, we believe it would be an injustice for the applicant to
continue to suffer the adverse effects of his narrative reason  for
discharge.  Therefore, it is our  opinion  that  a  change  of  the
narrative reason for separation to  “Secretarial  Authority,”  with
the corresponding separation code, is warranted  on  the  basis  of
clemency.   Accordingly,  we  recommend  applicant’s   records   be
corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence  of  error  or  injustice  in  regard  to
applicant’s request for a change in his RE code.   At  the  time  a
member is separated from the Air Force, they are  furnished  an  RE
Code  predicated  upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and   the
circumstances of their separation.  The assigned code reflects  the
Air Force’s position  regarding  whether  or  not,  or  under  what
circumstances, the individual should be allowed to reenlist.  After
careful  consideration  of  the  evidence  provided,  we  are   not
persuaded that the amended RE code of 2C is in error or  unjust  or
that an upgrade of the RE code is warranted.  We therefore conclude
that no basis exists upon which to recommend  favorable  action  on
his request that it be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 20 April  2000,
he was discharged under the provisions of  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph
1.2 (Secretarial Authority), with a Separation  Program  Designator
(SPD) code of “JFF.”

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-00421 in Executive Session  on  23  June  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member
      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member

All members voted to correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Feb 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair



AFBCMR BC-2005-00421


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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on 20
April 2000, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,
paragraph 1.2 (Secretarial Authority), with a Separation Program
Designator (SPD) code of “JFF.”




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency