RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03007
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  3 FEBRUARY 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B be changed so that he can
enlist in the Reserves.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His punishment was extreme and his representation was inadequate.

In  support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits   his   personal
statement.  The applicant's complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 February 1989, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at  the
age of 21 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of  4  years.   He
was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  airman  first  class  (E-3)
effective and with a date of rank of 10 June 1990.

On 2 October 1990, he received an Article  15  for  wrongfully  and  falsely
altering an identification card by entering  an  erroneous  date  of  birth.
For this offense, he was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2) and  sentenced
to 30 days correctional custody.

On 23 October 1990, he received an Article 15 for disobeying a lawful  order
and for dereliction in the performance of duty.  For this  offense,  he  was
reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1), forfeited $362.00 per month  for
two months, and received 45 days restriction.

In a summary court-martial trial held on 28  November  1990,  the  applicant
was charged with failing to obey a lawful order by driving on base.  It  was
recommended he be referred for trial by a special court-martial.

On 10 December 1990, the applicant submitted  a  request  to  his  commander
that he be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was advised  of
his rights and privileges and the possible effects of discharge under  these
circumstances and submitted a statement in his own behalf.

On 11 December 1990, his commander recommended the  applicant’s  request  be
approved.  In a legal  review  dated  12  December  1990,  the  staff  judge
advocate found the file legally sufficient and recommended the applicant  be
discharged from the Air Force and his service characterized as  under  other
than honorable conditions.  Thereafter, the wing  commander  concurred  with
the recommendation.  On 18 December 1990, the discharge  authority  approved
the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial  and
directed he be given an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge.

On 31 January 1991, the applicant was discharged with an  Under  Other  Than
Honorable Conditions discharge, having served 1 year 11 months and  21  days
on active duty in the Regular Air Force.  An  RE  code  of  “2B”  (separated
with less than an honorable discharge) was assigned.

On 2 August 1991, the applicant submitted an application to  the  Air  Force
Discharge Review Board (AFRDB)  requesting  his  discharge  be  upgraded  to
general.  The AFRDB determined that a change to  the  applicant’s  discharge
was not warranted.  The AFDRB Examiner’s brief is at Exhibit B.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the  former  member
(Identification Record No. 506608DB2 (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  stated  that   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.  They also note that the applicant did not  submit  any
new evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.  He provided no  facts  warranting  a  change  to  his
character of service or RE code.

DPPRS’ evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  Evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 4 November 2005.  On 28 November 2005,  the  applicant
was  invited  to  submit  information   pertaining   to   his   post-service
activities.  On 17 March 2006, a copy of the FBI  report  was  forwarded  to
the applicant.   To this date, no response has been received on any  of  the
above-mentioned correspondence (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After  careful  consideration  of
the available evidence, we found no indication that  the  actions  taken  to
effect his discharge were improper or contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the
governing regulations in effect at the  time,  or  that  the  actions  taken
against the applicant were based on factors other than his  own  misconduct.
We  have  reviewed  the  evidence  provided  and  are  unable  to   conclude
corrective action is warranted based on an injustice.  In addition, in  view
of the contents of the FBI Identification Record we are not  persuaded  that
clemency is warranted in this case.  Therefore, we believe  that  given  the
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation,  the  RE  code  issued
was in accordance with the appropriate directive.  Absent  evidence  by  the
applicant showing the contrary, we find no basis to favorably  consider  his
request.

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 issues 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 probable 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  BC-2005-03007  in
Executive Session on 20 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
      Ms. Debra Walker, Member
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 May 2005, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPPRS Letter, dated 28 Oct 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 05; AFBCMR, dated
      28 Nov 05 & 17 Mar 06.
    Exhibit E.  FBI Report.




                                   MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                                   Panel Chair