RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00378
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 AUG 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to “1”.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The National Personnel Records Center  (NPRC),  military  personnel  records
made an error in his reenlistment code.

Applicant’s complete submission, with an attachment, is attached at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 11 June 1973,  as
an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 28 May 1973 (sic), the applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent
to initiate discharge action under the provisions of Air Force Manual  (AFM)
39-10, paragraph 3-81, convenience of  the  government,  marginal  producer.
The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.    On 23 May 1974, the applicant received a TAC Form 98, Record of
Individual Counseling for failure to go.

      b.    On 1 May 1974, the applicant received a Record of Individual of
Counseling for failure to go.

      c.    On  7  February  1974,  the  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for unsatisfactory quarters.

      d.    On 30 January  1974,  the  applicant  underwent  a  psychiatric
evaluation.

      e.    On 18 January 1974, a psychiatric evaluation was requested  for
the applicant.

      f.     On  17  January  1974,  the  applicant  received  an  LOR  for
unsatisfactory quarters.

      g.    On  15  January  1974,  the  applicant  received  a  Record  of
Individual Counseling for creating a disturbance.

      h.    On  12  December  1973,  the  applicant  received  an  LOR  for
unsatisfactory quarters.

      i.     On  11  October  1973,  the  applicant  received  an  LOR  for
unsatisfactory quarters.

EXAMINER’S NOTE:  The documentation for items e. and d.  were  not  in  the
applicant’s discharge package.

The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult legal  counsel;
and to submit statements in his own behalf.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge that he and his
senior noncommission officers counseled the applicant on several  occasions
trying to educate and aid the  applicant  in  solving  his  problems;  both
military and personal.  The commander further  stated  based  on  the  time
spent counseling and educating the applicant, he believes the applicant had
very limited potential for continued service.

On 2 May 1973 (sic), the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification
letter and that military counsel will be made available to assist  him  and
waive his right to submit a statement

On 3 June 1974, a legal review was  conducted  in  which  the  staff  judge
advocate recommended the applicant receive a honorable discharge.

On 13  June  1974,  the  discharge  authority  directed  the  applicant  be
discharged with an honorable discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 11 June 1974, in  the  grade  of  airman  first
class, in accordance with AFM 39-10, and was issued an honorable  discharge
with an RE code of “2” which denotes the applicant was a marginal producer.
 He served 1 year, 11 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the applicant's request be denied.  They state the
applicant has not submitted any  evidence  nor  identified  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the processing of his  discharge.   Based  upon
the documentation in the applicant's file, they believe his  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of   the
discharge regulation.  Also, the discharge was within the sound  discretion
of the discharge authority, nor has the applicant  provided  any  facts  to
warrant changing his RE code.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  3
March 2006, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has  been
received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice.  After careful consideration  of  the
circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the  applicant,  the
Board  is  not  persuaded  that  the  discharge  action  and  the  resulting
reenlistment  eligibility  code  he  received  was  in  error   or   unjust.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with  the  opinion
and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its  rationale  as  the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error
or  an  injustice.   The  applicant  received  a  reenlistment  code   which
reflected the circumstances of his separation.   The  reenlistment  code  he
received reflected he was he was marginal producer.  The applicant  provided
any evidence to warrant a change in his reenlistment code.  In view  of  the
above and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application.

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 issue(s) 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 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-2006-00378
in Executive Session on 18 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
                       Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
                       Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Feb 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Mar 06.




                                             JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                             Panel Chair