RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02572
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 February 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like to continue serving his country as a member of its armed
forces.

Applicant does not submit any documentation in support of the appeal.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 December 1996.   His
highest grade held was senior airman.

On 21 August 2003, applicant was denied reenlistment  (AF  Form  418).
He signed the form on the same date, indicating his acknowledgment  of
the nonselection and  indicated  he  did  not  intend  to  appeal  the
decision.

On 18 September 2003, the applicant’s commander notified him  that  he
was recommending discharge for the Air Force  for  minor  disciplinary
infractions.  He was  recommending  the  applicant  receive  an  under
honorable conditions (general) discharge.  The reasons for his  action
were:

    1.  On  20  February  2003,  he  received  an  Article  15,  dated
20 February 2003, for wrongfully  having  sexual  intercourse  with  a
married woman not his wife.

    2.  Nonjudicial proceedings were imposed on the applicant based on
infractions he committed on or about 25 March 2003 as follows:

        a.  1 May 2003, the suspended portion of his 20 February  2003
punishment was vacated based on the commander’s determination  he  was
derelict in the performance of his duties by  failing  to  replace  or
conduct inspections of filter elements on  in  the  anti-skid  booster
system of an aircraft and, as a result of the above-cited failures, he
wrongfully and recklessly engaged in conduct likely to cause death  or
serious bodily harm to the aircrew piloting the aircraft.

        b.  19 May 2003, Article 15  punishment  was  imposed  on  the
applicant for the offenses in 2a above.

    3.  On 8 September 2003, the suspended portion of the 19 May  2003
nonjudicial  punishment  was  vacated   based   on   his   commander’s
determination he had been derelict in the performance of his duties in
that he negligently  failed  to  complete  or  maintain  current  base
registration on his vehicle.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
indicated he understood he could be discharged from the Air Force with
an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

On 17 October 2003, an  Administrative  Discharge  Board  convened  to
determine whether discharge prior to  expiration  of  the  applicant’s
term of service was appropriate.  The board recommended  applicant  be
discharged from  active  duty  with  an  honorable  discharge  without
probation and rehabilitation.  The  base  legal  office  reviewed  the
discharge package and the summary of  board  proceedings,  found  them
legally sufficient to support separation and recommended applicant  be
discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge   without   probation   and
rehabilitation.  The discharge authority approved the  separation  and
directed that applicant be  discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 30 December  2003  under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(misconduct), with an honorable discharge.  He had served seven  years
and one day on active duty.  He received an RE code of “2C”.  RE  code
2C  indicates  he  was  involuntarily  separated  with  an   honorable
discharge; or  entry  level  separation  without  characterization  of
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states, 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.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 September 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice.  Applicant’s  contentions  are
duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has  been
the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   At  the  time  members  are
separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated
upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and  circumstances  of   their
separation.  After a thorough review of the  evidence  of  record,  we
believe that  given  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s
separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the  appropriate
directives.  Therefore, we find  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend
favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 1 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-02572 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 05.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Aug 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Sep 05.




                             MARILYN M. THOMAS
                             Vice Chair