RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02614
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 February 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the punishment was excessive when his  supervisor  advised
him that he was only going to issue a letter of reprimand  (LOR),  but
his first sergeant insisted this is what had to be done.  He was  made
to believe that if he did not  accept  the  Article  15  he  could  go
through a court-martial and could possibly go to jail.  He was only 20
years old and believed he had no options but to accept the Article  15
or go to jail.

He would like the opportunity to return to active duty and  serve  his
country.

He did not  provide  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  22  June  1983  for  a
period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of
airman on 12 January 1983, airman first class on  12  July  1983,  and
senior airman on 12 July 1985.  He received three  airman  performance
reports (APRs) closing 21 June 1984, 21  June  1985  and  20  November
1985, in which the overall evaluations were “9,” “7,” and “8.”

On 21 July 1986, the applicant’s commander notified him  that  he  was
recommending discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  misconduct  (minor
disciplinary infractions).  He recommended a general  discharge.   The
reasons for his action were:  (1) On 7 May 1986,  he  was  reprimanded
for being in violation of AFR 35-10 in that he had not shaved.  (2) He
received an Article 15 on 27  May  1986  for  failing  to  go  to  his
appointed place of duty  on  12,  19  and  20  May  1986.   Punishment
consisted of reduction to the grade of airman, forfeiture  of  $150.00
for two months, and correctional custody for 30 days.   The  execution
of the portion of this punishment  which  provided  for  reduction  to
airman was suspended until 25 November 1986, at which time unless  the
suspension was sooner vacated it would be  remitted.   (3)  On  9 July
1986, he received an Article 15 for wrongfully failing to  go  to  his
appointed place of duty on 7 July 1986.   Punishment  consisted  of  a
previously suspended nonjudicial punishment being  vacated,  reduction
to the grade of airman basic, and restriction for 30 days.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
waived his rights to consult legal counsel and  submit  statements  in
his own behalf.

The base legal office reviewed the case, found it  legally  sufficient
to support separation  and  recommended  applicant  receive  an  under
honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge  without   probation   and
rehabilitation.

The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that  the
applicant be discharged with an under honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 31 July 1986  under  the
provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative   Separation   of   Airmen
(misconduct - pattern of  minor  disciplinary  infractions),  with  an
under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge.   He  had  served  3
years, 1 month and 10 days on active duty.  He received a reenlistment
eligibility code of 2B, “Separated with a general or under other  than
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.”

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  indicated  on  the  basis  of  the  data
furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

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 D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant  for
review and comment on 9 September 2005.  In addition, by letter  dated
11 October 2005, he was  notified  he  could  provide  statements  and
evidence pertaining to his post service activities.

Applicant provided a statement explaining the incidents  that  led  to
his discharge.  In summary, he realized shortly after his release from
active duty that he had failed to honor his obligation.  This bothered
him a great deal, but he figured he couldn’t  do  anything  about  it.
The past was the past and he couldn’t change it.  After being  married
and going through such traumatic and life  changing  experiences  with
his wife, their children and his wife’s health issues, he learned that
no matter how difficult things may be or not  being  happy  with  what
life has handed him, the worst thing he could do is quit.  He  is  now
older  and  wiser,   and   does   not   take   his   obligations   and
responsibilities lightly.  He knows that if  given  the  privilege  to
rejoin the active service, he would honor his obligation,  accept  his
responsibilities, and do any duty handed to him to  the  best  of  his
ability.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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  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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.  The
applicant has provided no evidence  showing  the  information  in  his
records is erroneous, his substantial rights  were  violated,  or  his
commanders abused their discretionary authority.  We  have  noted  the
statements provided by the applicant pertaining to his accomplishments
subsequent to leaving the service.  In view of the length of time that
has elapsed since  his  separation  and  the  limited  nature  of  the
information provided, we are not inclined to recommend a change to the
record that would render the applicant eligible  to  enlist  based  on
clemency.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we
find no  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  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 9 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 05.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Aug 05.
      Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 05, and AFBCMR,
                dated 11 Oct 05.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 21 Oct 05,
               with attachments.




                             CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY
                             Panel Chair