RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03500
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 May 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for his discharge (misconduct)  be  changed,  his
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from  “3A,”  “First-term
airman who separates before completing 36 months on current enlistment
and who has no known disqualifying factors or ineligibility conditions
except grade, skill  level,  and  insufficient  Total  Active  Federal
Military Service (TAFMS),” and  the  character  of  his  discharge  be
upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He feels that “being put out of the military at an early time was  not
necessary” due to his immaturity as a young airman.  There was a  lack
of communication that resulted in a technical error on his  part.   If
he had had a “proper period” of  maturing,  he  believes  the  problem
would have corrected itself.  His actions prior to  the  incident  did
not reflect a constant showing of misconduct.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 17  Jun  98  and
was promoted up to the grade of airman first class (A1C).  On  30  May
00, his squadron commander notified the applicant  of  his  intent  to
discharge him from the Air Force for  misconduct,  specifically  minor
disciplinary infractions with service characterized as  general.   The
reasons for the commander’s actions were:

        a.  Applicant received a letter of reprimand on 16 May 00  for
failing to refrain from consuming alcohol on 6 May 00.

        b.  Applicant was punished under Article 15 on 22 Mar  00  for
unlawfully striking another service member in the face, chest, hip and
arm with his fists and feet.

        c.  Applicant was counseled for  signing  off  on  a  combined
Basic Postflight/Preflight inspection on an aircraft that during a pre-
exercise generation inspection  was  discovered  to  have  an  obvious
defect on the left main landing gear tire.

        d.  Applicant was counseled  for  missing  a  Physical  Health
Assessment appointment.

        e.  Applicant was counseled for failure to annotate the proper
information on an aircraft refuel and intake inspection.

        f.  Applicant was counseled for failing to attend  a  physical
training formation.

The applicant responded to  the  notification  and  indicated  he  had
consulted counsel and submitted a written statement in his behalf.

On 9 Jun 00, the squadron commander recommended to the wing  commander
the applicant be  discharged  for  the  reasons  indicated  above  and
furnished a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge.   The
commander also recommended the applicant  not  receive  probation  and
rehabilitation.  On 9 Jun 00, the wing staff judge advocate found  the
discharge  action  against  the   applicant  legally  sufficient   and
recommended he be discharged with  service  characterized  as  general
(under honorable conditions).

On 9 Jun 00, the wing commander directed the applicant  be  discharged
from the Air  Force  with  service  characterized  as  general  (under
honorable  conditions)  and  that  he  not  be  given  probation   and
rehabilitation.

The applicant was discharged on 13 Jun 00 with  service  characterized
as general (under honorable conditions).  The narrative reason for his
discharge was “misconduct” with a “3A” RE code.

The applicant received an enlisted performance report (EPR)  while  in
service with an overall rating of  “3”  and  markdowns  in  all  seven
performance factors.  On 9 Jan 03,  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review
Board denied a request from the applicant to upgrade his discharge  to
honorable and concluded the applicant’s discharge was consistent  with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

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 and 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:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9
Dec 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has
not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  While  it  appears  the  type  of  incidents  the
applicant was involved could have been the result  of  his  youth  and
immaturity at the time, he has not submitted sufficient  evidence  for
us  to  grant  the  relief  requested  on  the  basis   of   clemency.
Additionally, we note that his “3A” Reenlistment Eligibility code is a
waiverable code where he may still apply to  enter  military  service.
In fact, according to his application, he is at present serving in the
Army Reserve.  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-
03500 in Executive Session on 24 January 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Dec 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 05.




                                   MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair