RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00019
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  8 JULY 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code and Narrative  Reason  for  discharge
be changed.  In addition, he would like his  grade  of  A1C  (E-3)  rank  be
restored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes he was treated unfairly during his Air  Force  service.   During
his appearance before the Air Force Discharge Review Board,  he  was  unable
to remember details he believes would have helped him in his case.   He  now
remembers certain facts that could help the  Board  make  a  more  equitable
decision.

In support of his request, he  submits  four  character  reference  letters.
His submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic (E-1) on 15 November 2001.   He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the
grade of airman first class (E-3), with a  date  of  rank  of  15  September
2002.  Applicant performed duties as an Aircraft Loadmaster.

On  23  March  2004,  the  applicant  was  charged  with  overindulgence  in
intoxicating liquor, not  properly  performing  his  duties  and  wrongfully
consuming  alcoholic  beverages  within  12  hours  of  takeoff.   For  this
incident, punishment under Article 15,  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice
(UCMJ) was imposed.  He received a reduction to the grade  of  airman  (E-2)
and a Letter of Reprimand.

On 10 March 2004, the applicant failed to show for his Emergency  Procedures
Evaluation at his appointed place of duty.  For this incident,  he  received
a Letter of Reprimand.

On 18 September 2002,  the  applicant  was  charged  with  being  drunk  and
disorderly.  For this incident, punishment under Article  15,  Uniform  Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed.  He received a reduction  to  airman
basic and thirty days correctional custody, suspended.

On 26 April 2004, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge  proceedings
against him under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,  paragraph  5.50.2,  for  a
Pattern of Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to  Good  Order  and  Discipline.
The applicant was notified of his  commander’s  recommendation  and  that  a
general discharge was being recommended.  He was advised of his  rights;  he
consulted counsel and waived his right  to  submit  statements  in  his  own
behalf.  In a legal review of the  discharge  case  file,  the  staff  judge
advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that he  be  discharged
from the  Air  Force  with  a  general  discharge  and  concurred  with  the
commander  that  the  applicant  not  be  considered   for   probation   and
rehabilitation.  On 6 May 2004, the discharge authority directed that he  be
discharged with a general discharge.  Subsequently, on  18  June  2004,  the
applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFI  36-3208  (Pattern  of
Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline)  and  received
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with an  RE  Code  of  “2B”
(Separated with a general or under other than honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)
discharge).  He served 2 years, 7 months, and 3 days on active duty.

On 15 November 2005, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)  reviewed
and granted the applicant’s request  that  his  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.  Pursuant, the AFDRB’s decision  showing  that  he  received  an
honorable  discharge,  his  RE  code  was  changed  from   “2B”   to   “2C”
(Involuntarily separated  with  an  honorable  discharge;  or  entry  level
separation without characterization of service). However,  the  DRB  denied
the applicant’s request to upgrade the RE code and change  the  reason  and
authority for the discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS  states  that  based
upon the documentation in the file, they conclude  that  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation and that the applicant did not identify any  errors  or
injustices in the discharge processing.  The  AFPC/DPPRS  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB  recommends  the  application  be  denied.   DPPPWB  states  the
commander was acting within his authority  when  he  reduced  the  applicant
under Article 15  and  subsequently  recommended  him  for  discharge.   The
AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied.   JA  states  the  applicant’s
records illustrate that in the relatively short time  he  served  on  active
duty  he  failed  to  correct  his  behavior  despite  repeated  nonjudicial
punishments and a reprimand.  JA opines  that  although  it  is  commendable
that the applicant has the support of many members of his  community  today,
this is immaterial to the narrative reason for his discharge, his  RE  code,
and whether his commander was justified for reducing him  in  rank  for  his
alcohol-related offenses.  The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states  that  since  he  separated  from  the  Air  Force  he  has
continued with  his  study  and  employment  in  the  field  of  Information
Technology.  He is a student at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University and  is
over half way done with a Bachelor Degree in Professional Aeronautics and  a
member of the professional loadmaster  association.   Since  his  separation
from the Air Force, a very large part of his life is missing.  He asks  that
he be given the chance to again defend this  country.   Applicant’s  letter,
with character reference letters, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record  and  the
applicant’s  submission,  we  are  persuaded  the  applicant  has   provided
sufficient evidence to warrant a  change  to  his  Reenlistment  Eligibility
(RE) code and Narrative reason.  Although the actions taken  to  effect  the
applicant’s discharge and the RE code he received were accurate, we  believe
that based on the numerous character reference letters  which  describe  his
exemplary work ethic and commitment  to  again  serve  his  country  and  in
consideration of the Discharge  Review  Board’s  finding  that  his  overall
quality of service is accurately reflected by  an  Honorable  discharge,  we
believe he  should  be  given  the  opportunity  to  apply  for  enlistment.
Therefore, we believe the reason for his separation  should  be  changed  to
“Secretarial Authority” with a separation code of “JFF” and his RE  code  be
changed to “3K.”  Therefore, we recommend his records be  corrected  to  the
extent indicated below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice that would warrant his grade  of  A1C  (E-3)
be restored.  Notwithstanding the above,  evidence  has  not  been  provided
which  would  lead  us  to  conclude  that  his  demotion  to   airman   was
inappropriate.  The record  shows  that  the  applicant  did  have  alcohol-
related offenses and the reduction in rank punishment  was  warranted  under
the circumstances.   In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  indicate  that  the
information contained in his records is  erroneous  or  that  his  commander
abused his discretionary authority, we find no basis to  recommend  granting
this portion of the applicant’s request.

5.  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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 18 June 2004,  he  was  discharged
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Secretarial  Authority,  and  issued  a
Separation  Program  Designator  of  “JFF”   and   issued   a   Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) code of “3K” rather than “2C.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2006-
00019 in Executive Session on 11 May 2006, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Donna Jonkoff, Member
              Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Mar 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Mar 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 12 Apr 06,
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.





                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair