RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00754
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 SEP 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him reenter
military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his discharge he was informed by his commanding officer
that he would be eligible (sic) for reenlistment.  He has skills  that
are currently in great demand by the Army but because of the  RE  code
he received he cannot enlist in the Army.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)  on  24 November
1984, as an airman basic (AB) for a period of six years.

On 24 April 1986, the applicant received an Article 15 for on or about
15 March 1986 for wrongful use of marijuana.  For this misconduct  his
punishment consisted of a reduction in grade  to  airman  basic  (AB),
forfeiture of $319 of pay per month or two months and  restriction  to
the base for 60 days.

On 3 May 1986, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to
recommend  him  for  discharge  under  the  provision  of  Air   Force
Regulation (AFR) 39-10, paragraph 5-49c (drug  abuse).   The  specific
reason for the discharge action was:

        Incident/Complaint  Report,  LAK  86-4-18I  for  violation  of
Article 112 United Code of Military Justice  (UMCJ)  wrongful  use  of
possession of a controlled substance  (marijuana/hashish)  between  13
February and 2 April 1986.

The commander advised the applicant of his right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been obtained  for  him;
and to submit statements in his  own  behalf;  or  waive  the  above
rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for  discharge  that  he
entered the applicant into the drug rehabilitation program and with or
without rehabilitation he does not recommend the applicant be retained
in the Air Force.  The commander further recommended the applicant not
be considered for probation or rehabilitation.

On 8 May 1986, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification
letter and that military counsel was made available to assist him  and
waived his right to submit a statement

On 13 May 1986, a legal review was conducted in which the staff  judge
advocate  recommended  the  applicant  receive  an   under   honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged  with  an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge without  probation  and
rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 27 May 1986, in the grade of airman basic,
in accordance with AFR  39-10,  and  was  issued  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge with an RE code of “2B”  which  denotes
the applicant was involuntarily separated  under  AFR  39-10,  with  a
general or under other than honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge.
He served one year, six months and eight days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the requested relief be denied.  DPPRS states
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.  Also, he  did
not provide any facts to warrant a change  in  the  character  of  his
discharge or his RE code.

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

HQ AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s  request.   JA  states
the applicant provided no persuasive evidence  to  support  his  claim
that he was told he could reenlist in the military.  Furthermore,  the
discharge notification letter the applicant received  stated  “If  you
are discharged, you will be ineligible for  reenlistment  in  the  Air
Force and will probably be denied enlistment in any component  of  the
Armed Forces.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
14 April 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 excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice.  Applicant’s  contentions  are
duly noted; however, we are not persuaded the applicant has  been  the
victim of an error or an injustice.  At the time members are separated
from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon  the
quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  After
a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the
circumstances surrounding the  applicant’s  separation,  the  RE  code
issued  was  in  accordance  with  the  appropriate  directives.    In
addition, the discharge notification  letter  the  applicant  received
clearly stated if  he  was  discharged  he  would  be  ineligible  for
reenlistment.   Furthermore,  the  applicant  has  not  provided   any
evidence to substantiate the processing of his  discharge  or  the  RE
code he received were in error or unjust.  Therefore, we find no basis
upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-00754 in Executive Session on 24 May 2006 under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
                       Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 06.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Mar 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 10 Apr 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06.




                             MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                             Panel Chair