RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01950
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   COUNSEL: NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  31 JAN 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  and  narrative  reason  for
separation be changed to allow reentry into the Air National Guard  or
the Air Force Reserves.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation is unjust because he  only  failed
his end-of-course test and did not fail in performing his duties.  His
post-service accomplishments justify another opportunity to serve  his
country.

In support of his  request,  the  applicant  submits  two  Letters  of
Appreciation and a copy of Air  Force  Form  909,  Airman  Performance
Report.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
14 October 1987 for a  term  of  four  years.   On  9  May  1989,  the
applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be
discharged from the Air Force for failure to  progress  in  on-the-job
(OJT) training.  The basis for the action was on 25 February 1989,  he
failed to obey a lawful order  and  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR); on 10 February 1989, he failed to enforce Air Force regulations
requiring that visitor’s be issued visitor’s passes to get on base; on
15 February 1989 and 12 November 1988, he failed  his  end  of  course
examination and was counseled, and on 31 July 1988, he  failed  to  be
present for duty and received a Letter of Counseling.  He was  advised
of his rights in this matter, waived his right to  seek  counsel,  and
elected not to submit statements in his  own  behalf.   The  discharge
authority  approved  the  discharge  and  directed  a  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge without probation and  rehabilitation.
On 12 June 1989, he was discharged with  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions)  discharge,   under   the   provisions   of   AFR   39-10,
Administrative Separation of Airmen, (unsatisfactory performance) with
a general discharge.  He received an  RE  code  of  2B  “Involuntarily
separated with a  general  or  under  other-than-honorable  conditions
discharge.”  He served 1 year, 7  months  and  29  days  total  active
service.

On 21 July 1989, the applicant submitted an  application  to  the  Air
Force Discharge Review  Board  (AFDRB)  requesting  his  discharge  be
upgraded to honorable.  The AFDRB concluded  his  overall  quality  of
service was more accurately reflected by an  honorable  discharge  and
upgraded his discharge to an honorable,  but  denied  his  request  to
change the narrative reason for separation.  This action also  changed
his  RE  code  to  2C  “Involuntarily  separated  with  an   honorable
discharge; or  entry  level  separation  without  characterization  of
service.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 13 September 2006, that on the  basis  of
the data furnished  they  were  unable  to  locate  an  arrest  record
(Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states 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.  The discharge was within the discretion of the  discharge
authority, the applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify
any errors or injustices that occurred in  the  discharge  processing,
nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his RE code.   The
AFDRB previously considered all the evidence of record  and  concluded
the overall quality of his service was more accurately reflected by an
honorable discharge, but denied his request to  change  the  narrative
reason for discharge.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  According to  DPPAE,  no  evidence  was
found to indicate error or injustice; nor did the applicant submit any
evidence.  He should seek a waiver of the RE code from  the  enlisting
service.

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
11 Aug 06, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 error or injustice to warrant changing his  narrative
reason for separation or his reenlistment eligibility.  After  careful
consideration of the available evidence, the Board found no indication
that the actions taken  to  affect  his  discharge  were  improper  or
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations at  the  time,
or  that  the  actions  taken  against  the  applicant  were   unjust.
Therefore, the Board agrees with the opinions and  recommendations  of
the Air Force offices  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopts  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in  the  absence
of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds 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-2006-
01950 in Executive Session on 27 September 2006, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                 Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Request, dated 13 Sep 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Jul 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Aug 06.
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Aug 06.



      MARILYN M. THOMAS
      Vice Chair