RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  2006-00083
            INDEX CODE:  106.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 July 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His current mental and physical stability  is  outstanding.   His  ambitions
and goals are in line with  military  standards  and  he  would  be  a  good
example for others.  It is his desire to serve in  the  United  States  Army
and he is fully capable of becoming an outstanding soldier.  During his  Air
Fore career he made some choices that led him down a dark and  lonely  road.
Alcohol got the best of him, destroyed  his  Air  Force  career  and  almost
ruined his life.  He would like his  self-respect  and  honor  restored  and
that can only come by serving his country in the Army.

In support of his request,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal  statement,
character references’, and a copy of  his  DD  Form  214.   The  applicant’s
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 December 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 6 years.  He  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), effective and with a  date  of
rank of 18 September 1991.  He received  six  Enlisted  Performance  Reports
closing 1 December 1988, 3 April 1989, 4 January  1990,  9  August  1990,  9
August 1991 and 9 August 1992, in which the overall ratings were  9,  9,  2,
4, 5, and 3 respectively.

On 6 December 1992, the applicant wrote two checks with insufficient funds.

On 4 December 1992, an Unfavorable Information File  (UIF)  was  established
based on his being arrested by Warrensburg, Missouri Police for  brandishing
a weapon.

On 4 December 1992, the applicant received three Letters of  Reprimand  for:
failure to maintain his dormitory room in  a  sanitary  manner;  failure  to
maintain expected standards; and hair was cut in an extreme faddish style.

On 21 November 1992, an incident report was filed concerning  the  applicant
pointing a semi automatic handgun at a patrolman.

On 14 November 1992, an incident report was filed concerning  applicant  was
involved in a fight.

On 22  September  1992,  the  applicant  received  a  Record  of  Individual
Counseling for failure to obey orders.

On 14  December  1992,  the  applicant  failed  the  Alcohol  Rehabilitation
Program and was entered into Track 5 and was recommended for separation.

On  30  December  1992,  the  applicant’s  commander   initiated   discharge
proceedings against him under the provisions of AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5.32
(Alcohol  Rehabilitation  Failure).   The  applicant  was  notified  of  his
commander’s  recommendation  and  that  a  general   discharge   was   being
recommended.  He was advised of his rights in  the  matter.   The  applicant
waived his right to legal counsel and to submit statements  in  his  behalf.
On 3 January 1993, the discharge authority directed that  the  applicant  be
discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR  39-10,  paragraph
5.32,  (Alcohol  Rehabilitation  Failure),  with  character  of  service  as
general (under honorable conditions).  The applicant was  discharged  on  14
January  1993  by  reason  of  “Alcohol  Rehabilitation  Failure”   with   a
Separation Code of “JPD” and a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code  of  “2B.”
He had served 5 years, 1 month and 13 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

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/DPPAE  recommends  the  application  be  denied.   DPPAE   states   the
applicant’s RE code is correct and should not be changed.  If the  applicant
wishes to serve in  the  US  Army,  the  enlisting  service  may  waive  any
conditions  that  prohibit  his   entry.    The   DPPAE   evaluation,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s reiterates he wants to be a soldier and would be a  valuable
asset to the Army.  Applicant’s letter 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 that would warrant a change to his RE  code.
 Evidence has not been provided that would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the
applicant’s discharge in 2003 was erroneous or unjust.  Therefore,  we  have
no basis to conclude that the corresponding RE code  that  was  assigned  at
the time of his separation does not accurately reflect the circumstances  of
his  separation.   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  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 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 12 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Jan 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.





                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHM
                                   Panel Chair