RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02449
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 FEB 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires his RE code changed to a code that would allow  him  to  reenlist
in the service.  He indicates he was discharged due to a  traffic  violation
he received one month  prior  to  beginning  basic  training.   He  reported
receiving the traffic violation to his recruiter.  The recruiter  instructed
him not to mention it to anyone unless specifically asked.  Four weeks  into
basic training he was asked about the ticket and was informed  he  committed
a breech of contract.  He  further  indicates  he  did  what  his  recruiter
instructed him to do.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 September 1993, the applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Force  for  a
period of four years.

On 8 October 1993, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent  to
initiate  discharge   action   against   him   for   Erroneous   Enlistment.
Specifically, he was ineligible to enlist in the  United  States  Air  Force
due to his involvement with law enforcement authorities.   He  received  two
traffic violations as reported by  the  North  Carolina  Division  of  Motor
Vehicles.  On 6 and 11 August 1993, he was driving  while  his  license  was
revoked and was in violation of a stop law.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to  consult  legal  counsel
and submit statements in his own behalf.  He was  advised  that  failure  to
submit matters in his own behalf would constitute a waiver of his  right  to
do so.

Military legal counsel was made available  to  the  applicant;  however,  he
waived his right to consult counsel and to  submit  statements  in  his  own
behalf.

On 13 October 1993, the Assistance  Staff  Judge  Advocate  recommended  the
applicant be separated from the service with an entry-level separation.

The discharge authority approved the  applicant’s  discharge  on  13 October
1993.

The applicant was discharged on 27 October 1993,  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic with an entry-level separation, under the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,
Erroneous Entry (Other).  He served a total of 1 month and 20 days of  total
active military service.  He received an  RE  code  of  2C  -  Involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge;  or  entry-level  separation  without
characterization of service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating based on the documentation on  file
in the master personnel records,  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   The
discharge was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.   The
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts  warranting
a change to his reenlistment eligibility code.

Airmen   are   given    entry-level    separation/uncharacterized    service
characterization when separation is initiated  in  the  first  180  days  of
continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if  a
member served less than 180 of days continuous active service, it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited  service.
 Therefore, his uncharacterized character  of  service  is  correct  and  in
accordance with DOD and Air Force instruction.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________





APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 26 August 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response 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 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 an error or an injustice.   After  reviewing  the  evidence  of
record and the applicant’s submission, it is  our  opinion  that  given  the
circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air  Force,  the  RE  code
assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives.   The
applicant has not provided any evidence  which  would  lead  us  to  believe
otherwise.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted;  however,  we  agree
with the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt  its  rational
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been  the  victim
of an error or injustice.  In  this  respect,  it  is  noted  the  applicant
claims his recruiter advised him  not  to  mention  his  traffic  violations
unless specifically asked.  However, the Board notes that on 7 October  1993
the commander indicates on a counseling report the applicant  “presented  no
extenuating circumstances to explain his failure to reveal all  his  traffic
violations prior to enlistment.  He consciously did not tell his  recruiter,
or the MEPs personnel because  he  knew  his  record  would  jeopardize  his
enlistment.”  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
02449 in Executive Session on 20 October 2005, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 July 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 August 2005.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 August 2005.




                       KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                       Panel Chair