RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00571
            INDEX CODE:  100.06

            COUNSEL:  JAMES W. VOLBERDING

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment code of 2X (First-term, second-term, or career airman
considered but not selected for reenlistment”),  barring  reenlistment
be changed to 1M (Eligible to reenlist) or  an  equivalent  code  that
would allow the applicant to enlist in the Air Force  Reserve  or  the
Texas National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant  contends  the  central   obstacle   to   his   reenlistment
eligibility stems from an automobile accident in Germany  on  5 August
2002.  He was accused of having run into a German civilian on a  motor
scooter and leaving  the  scene  of  the  accident.   Applicant  takes
responsibility for the accident, but contends there were  no  injuries
and he did not leave the accident scene.  He contends he backed out of
a parking space and upon viewing no traffic  began  to  pull  forward.
The German civilian apparently did not hit his car  but  instead  lost
control of his scooter while trying to avoid a  collision.   Applicant
states the German was on the ground  and  wearing  a  helmet  when  he
exited his vehicle to check on him.  He asked the German if he  needed
help and the German replied that he did not.  The German had a  friend
on another scooter who offered  to  call  the  police.   The  accident
victim indicated that was not  necessary  and  there  was  no  further
problem.  At that point, the applicant  apologized,  returned  to  his
vehicle and left the area.  The German, upon finding his scooter would
not start, decided to call the police after all to make sure he  would
had a police report to submit to his  insurance  company.   The  local
police filed a report stating the  applicant  had  left  the  accident
scene in violation of German law.  The accident resulted in an Article
15 and damage to his relationship with his chain-of-command.   He  was
unable to successfully challenge the allegations even after  obtaining
a statement from the German civilian involved.   He  obtained  another
statement from the German, this time with the aid of a German  friend.
The statement basically reiterated the  applicant’s  statement  except
that the German stated he had no intention of reporting a hit and run.
 Applicant contends that when the police found out  he  had  left  the
scene, they assumed he had fled without offering  assistance.   During
the conversation prior to the statement, the German asked why  it  had
taken a year for the applicant to approach him for another  statement.
Applicant’s German friend told the German the applicant  had  been  in
Iraq for a year rather than try to explain the course of an Article 15
thinking it would be easier to understand.  Applicant was  present  in
the conversation at some point, either  with  the  victim  or  at  the
police station but failed  to  correct  the  misstatement.   During  a
subsequent investigation, his commander and the investigating  officer
concluded  his  failure  to  correct  the   misstatement   constituted
deception.  His Article 15 appeal was denied.

In an attempt to save his career, the applicant contacted  the  German
civilian a second  and  third  time  for  statements  and  the  German
graciously provided them.  He appealed his denial  of  reconsideration
of the Article 15 and another investigating officer evaluated the case
and concluded the commander was within his discretion and  that  there
was sufficient evidence to justify the Article 15.  Applicant contends
he is no longer challenging the Article 15 but does state he  was  not
responsible for leaving the  accident  and  that  the  events  do  not
justify a bar to reenlistment.

Applicant states the  additional  bars  to  his  reenlistment  include
improper wear of the uniform, disrespect, and failure to  comply  with
orders and are respectfully, not true.  Even if they were  true,  they
would still not be serious enough to bar him  from  reenlistment.   He
contends at worse, they are signs of a young man from a small town  in
need of maturity, not the actions of one who does not want to serve in
the Air Force.  He contends his willingness to return to a combat zone
as a civilian contractor in Iraq is inconsistent with  allegations  of
inappropriate soldier behavior.

Since his discharge in August 2004, his performance as a civilian  has
been exemplary.  He is ambitious,  intelligent,  and  clearly,  he  is
maturing.  His desire to continue his career in fire fighting recently
led to employment with Haliburton as a fire fighter.  He has served in
Tikrit, Iraq as a firefighter and is  currently  stationed  in  Mosul,
Iraq.  He contends his decision to enter a conflict zone  indicates  a
high level of competence and a willingness to accept  risk.   It  also
reveals a willingness to serve  his  country  by  carrying  out  vital
safety services on behalf of Coalition Forces in Iraq.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and 25 attachments including copies  of  EPR’s,  information
from his High School record, his fire fighting training,  reenlistment
documents, pertinent documents surrounding the  German  accident,  and
some post discharge documents.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was an Airman 1st Class, stationed at Rhein-Main  Air  Base,
Frankfurt, Germany, on 5 August  2002  when  he  was  involved  in  an
automobile accident with a German national.  Applicant was offered non-
judicial punishment in lieu of trial by court martial  for  wrongfully
leaving the scene of  an  accident  without  identifying  himself,  in
violation of Article 134, Uniform Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).
Applicant accepted an Article 15 for said offense on 29  August  2002.
The punishment consisted of reduction in grade  to  Airman,  suspended
until 28 February 2003 unless sooner vacated, forfeiture of  $200  and
restriction to  the  limits  of  Rhein-Main  Air  Base  for  14  days.
Applicant provided a statement to his commander for  consideration  in
determining applicant’s punishment.  Applicant appealed the Article 15
to the appellate commander on 5 September 2002.  The appeal was denied
on 6 September 2002 and subsequently found legally  sufficient  on  18
September 2002.  The applicant, several months prior to the  accident,
had been involved in a discreditable incident with German  authorities
in that he was a passenger on a train and had not paid for his ticket.
 When questioned, he provided a false name and signed documents with a
false name.  He was given a Letter of  Reprimand  for  this  incident.
After the automobile accident, the applicant was involved  in  further
misconduct while on duty that enabled  his  commander  to  vacate  the
suspended reduction in grade.  His commander declined  to  do  so  and
issued a second LOR instead.  On 27 August 2003,  an  Air  Force  Form
418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, was  initiated  and
the Group Section Commander nonselected the applicant for reenlistment
on 2 October 2003.  The applicant acknowledged the action and  elected
to appeal the commander’s decision.  On 4 November 2003, the Air  Base
Group Commander disapproved his appeal.  He was  honorably  discharged
as an airman first class (A1C) on 7 September 2004 after having served
four years and one month.  He received  a  separation  code  of  “KBK”
(Completion of Required Active Service) and an RE code of “2X” (First-
term, second-term, or career airman considered but  not  selected  for
reenlistment”).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE found no  evidence  of  error  or
injustice.  DPPAE contends the applicant’s commander  made  the  final
nonselection and denied reenlistment based on the applicant’s Personal
Information File, Unit Personnel Records Group,  existing  Unfavorable
Information File, and a patter of misconduct.

DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
10 June 2005 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  The commander at the time  was  well  within  his
authority, under the circumstances, to discharge the applicant in  the
manner he  did  and  we  can  find  no  persuasive  evidence  to  find
otherwise.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we
find 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  issue(s)   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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00571 in Executive Session on 9 August 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 26 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 05.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair