RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02152
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 January 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2B be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is currently serving with the Montana Army National Guard and would
like to have his RE code upgraded  so  he  can  enlist  in  the  Naval
Reserve or even active service.

In  support  of  the   appeal,   applicant   submits   a   letter   of
recommendation.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  on  2  Sep  86.   On
25 May 90, he was notified by his commander he was recommending he  be
separated from the Air  Force  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,
Administrative Separation of Airmen, for misconduct – pattern of minor
disciplinary infractions.  The bases for the recommendation were:  (1)
he received five Letters of Reprimand (LORs)  for  personal  financial
obligations, being disorderly and causing a breach of  peace;  (2)  he
received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for  improperly  charging  meals
after his privileges had been suspended; and (3)  he  received  verbal
counseling for writing checks, (totaling the amount of $790.00),  with
insufficient funds in his account.  He  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification and submitted statements in his  own  behalf.   The  base
legal office reviewed the recommendation, found it legally sufficient,
and  recommended  separation  with  an  under   honorable   conditions
(general)  discharge  without  probation  and   rehabilitation.    The
discharge authority concurred with the  recommendations  and  directed
his separation.  He was separated on 27 Jun 90.  He served 3 years,  9
months and 26 days on active duty.  He was assigned RE code  2B  which
denotes “Separated with  a  general  or  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge”.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report  which  is
attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  the   discharge   was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation and was within the discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any
errors in his discharge processing.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4
Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days  (Ex  E).   In  a  letter
dated 11 Sep 06, applicant’s wife indicated applicant  is  unavailable
until 30 Sep 06 due  to  deployment  for  Montana  National  Guard  to
Warrior Training in Santa Fe and White Sands, New Mexico (Ex F).

The applicant provided a letter dated 25  Oct  06,  stating  that  the
change of his RE code  would  allow  more  options  for  him  and  the
military as to which path would be best.  He takes full responsibility
for all activities that took place early in his  life  and  his  first
enlistment in the Air Force.  He still believes that people deserve  a
second chance.   By  joining  the  Montana  Army  National  Guard  and
completing the Army’s Warrior Transition Course, he  believes  he  has
shown his dedication and willingness to be  a  part  of  any  military
branch and ability to support and defend the United States of America.
 He further states he cannot provide any evidence that the RE code was
or was not warranted.

A copy of Applicant’s response, with attachment, 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 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   As
stated, the applicant did not submit  any  evidence  or  identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing nor did
he provide any facts warranting a change to his character  of  service
or reenlistment  eligibility  code.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-02152 in Executive Session on 27 September 2006  and  8  November
2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 July 2006, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Jul 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 06.
      Exhibit F. Wife’s Letter, dated 11 Sep 06.
      Exhibit G. Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Oct 06, w/atchs.




                             MARILYN M. THOMAS
                             Vice Chair