RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03102
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 Apr 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code  of  “2B,”  “separated  with  a
general  or  under-than-honorable-conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge,”  be
changed to one that will allow him to reenter military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Recruiters from  the  Army,  Navy,  and  Coast  Guard  have  expressed
interest in utilizing his skills  and  experience  if  his  record  is
changed.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a copy of his DD  Form
214 and a copy of an enlisted performance report (EPR) closing 15  Oct
01 that shows an overall rating of “4”.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 13 Mar  97.   On
13 Jun 01, his squadron commander notified him he was recommending his
discharge from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions.   The
reasons for the commander’s action were the applicant’s involvement in
a series of infractions for which  he  had  been  counseled,  received
administrative disciplinary action, or punishment  under  Article  15.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s intended action,
consulted counsel, and submitted statements in his  behalf  requesting
retention  in  the  military  or  an   honorable   discharge.    After
consideration of the applicant’s statement, the  applicant’s  squadron
commander  recommended  to  the  wing  commander  the   applicant   be
discharged for the reasons stated above, that he be  given  a  general
discharge, and that he not be given probation and rehabilitation.  The
wing staff judge advocate (SJA) reviewed the discharge  and  found  it
legally sufficient to support  the  applicant’s  discharge.   The  SJA
recommended the applicant receive a general service  characterization.
On 3 Jul 02, the wing commander  approved  the  applicant’s  discharge
with  a  general  service  characterization  and  no  opportunity  for
probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged on 11  Jul
02 with a “2B” RE code.

A resume  of  the  applicant’s  enlisted  performance  reports  (EPRs)
follows:

      Closeout Date               Overall Rating

        15 Oct 98                       4
       *15 Oct 99                       2
       *15 Oct 00                       2
        15 Oct 01                       4

* Referral EPRs

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  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.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the evaluation the applicant states that although a
“2B” RE code could formerly be waived, that is no longer the case.  He
states that a close review of his record  will  show  that  he  earned
nothing but high marks and no less than six  letters  of  appreciation
from  wing  and  squadron  commanders,  as  well  as  a  citation  for
outstanding achievement.  He notes that all of the honors he  received
occurred while he was TDY between Jan 00 and  Apr  02  with  the  base
honor guard.  When he returned to his  parent  unit,  the  letters  of
counseling resumed and he was subsequently discharged.  He  states  he
has presented his case against the treatment he received while on duty
with his former unit.  He further states  when  others  committed  the
same infractions he did nothing happened, but any error  on  his  part
resulted in immediate paperwork.

The applicant states that he will complete his bachelor degree  within
seven months and is in the testing process for  appointment  as  a  US
Custom &  Border  Protection  Officer.   He  would  like  to  take  on
additional duty as a reservist in the Coast Guard.  He  stresses  that
the Coast Guard considers the  correction  he  is  requesting  to  his
record to be of great importance and without it they will not be  able
to extend any opportunity to him.  He indicates that he has enclosed a
letter written by his former employer, which he has not  reviewed  but
hopes the Board will consider regardless of how it impacts  his  case.
He indicates that granting his request does not  grant  him  immediate
access to military service because the approval authority  remains  at
the discretion of the service branch to which he applies.

In further support of his appeal the applicant attaches a  copy  of  a
citation for outstanding achievement, a copy of his EPR closing 15 Oct
01, and a letter of reference.

The applicant’s complete response is at 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.  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  their  rationale  as  the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the
victim of an error or  injustice.   Additionally,  we  note  that  the
applicant is incorrect in his assertion  that  RE  codes  in  the  “2”
series were formerly waiverable.  Based on our review of the discharge
package prepared on the applicant, it appears his commander considered
the same evidence and contentions he has made to this Board.   He  has
not  provided  sufficient  evidence  for  us  to  conclude  that   his
commander’s actions were arbitrary or capricious.  While we note  that
the applicant received favorable ratings on the last EPR he  received,
we also note that he was performing duties outside of his assigned Air
Force  specialty,  which  he  had  been  removed  from  due  to  minor
disciplinary infractions.  Finally, it was noted in the  legal  review
of his discharge package that he could have received  an  under  other
than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, but his infractions  were
not “so egregious” as to require a UOTHC.  In our view, it appears the
applicant’s case was given thorough  consideration  before  the  final
actions were taken.  Consequently, his RE code of “2B” is correct  and
appears to be fully justified.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
03102 in Executive Session on 7 December 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
      Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
      Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Sep 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Oct 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
                                   Panel Chair