RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03061
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 Apr 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code be changed to allow him to  join  the
United States Navy (USN).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He messed up once and, after  that,  he  was  punished  more  severely  than
others committing the same offenses.   His commander  piled  up  Letters  of
Counselings (LOCs) and Letters of Reprimands  (LORs)  on  him  while  giving
others waivers for the same offenses until  his  separation.   The  USN  has
indicated they will take him if his RE Code is changed to a “3” or “4”.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 April 2006  for  a  period
of six years.

On 16 August 2006, applicant was  notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
recommend him for an entry level separation for performance and conduct.

The commander stated the  following  reasons  for  the  proposed  discharge:


        a. dereliction in the performance of duties in that, on or about  21
           Jul 2006, applicant failed to refrain  from  consuming  alcoholic
           beverages while under the legal drinking age of 21 for  which  he
           received a LOR dated 3 August 2006
        b. violation of a lawful general order  in  that  applicant,  on  or
           about 8 July  2006,  willfully  possessed  and  consumed  tobacco
           products while on base or in uniform for which he received a  LOR
           dated 13 July 2006
        c. dereliction in the performance of duties in that applicant, on or
           about 13 June 2006, willfully failed to refrain from changing his
           answers during a progress check after looking at another Airman’s
           answers to the same progress check for which he received  Article
           15 punishment consisting of forfeiture of $589.00 pay  per  month
           for two months, restriction to the limits of  Sheppard  AFB,  TX,
           for 60 days, and a reprimand

The commander advised applicant of  his  right  to  consult  legal  counsel,
submit statements in his  own  behalf,  or  waive  the  above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

On 21 August 2006, applicant waived his right to consult counsel and  submit
statements in his own behalf.

Applicant was discharged on 28 August 2006 in the grade of Airman Basic  (E-
1), with  an  entry  level  separation,  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-3208,
paragraph 5-22, for entry level performance and conduct.  He served a  total
of four months and 18 days of net active service.

Airmen   are   given   entry   level   separation/uncharacterized    service
characterization when separation is  initiated  in  the  first  180 days  of
continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if  a
member served less than 180 days continuous  active  service,  it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial  as  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation,  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority,  and  his  uncharacterized
character  of  service  is  correct  and  in  accordance  with  DoD  and  AF
instructions.  They  further  advise  that  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing and provided no facts warranting a  change  to  his  RE
code.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the Air Force Evaluation in  a  memorandum  dated  15
December 2006 and offered further  explanation  for  the  three  infractions
that caused his entry level separation.
He states that he was not consuming tobacco; rather,  he  had  been  talking
with team members who had been smoking.  When accused, he felt  that  if  he
denied he was smoking, he would be viewed  by  his  teammates  as  betraying
them so he said nothing, thinking he would be reprimanded  and  given  extra
duties which he  felt  was  a  small  price  to  pay  for  standing  by  his
teammates.

He further states he did consume alcohol,  three  beers  to  be  exact,  and
states it was at an off  base  function  for  a  teammate  who  was  leaving
training soon and was celebrating his birthday.  He further states  that  he
had not eaten all day and had just come back from a long run and  felt  that
driving back to the base would  be  unsafe.   Rather  than  risk  injury  to
himself or others, he asked a teammate who had not been  drinking  to  drive
his vehicle back  to  the  base  for  him.   When  the  driver  and  vehicle
identification did not match at the gate, he was reprimanded  for  consuming
alcohol.

Finally, he states that he did change an answer on his progress  check.   He
states that he and several of his teammates would study  together  and  help
each other to remember points and would sometimes quiz each other  at  chow,
while working out, or various other places.   After  their  progress  check,
one of the guys in line was looking through his answers  and  he  discovered
that he  had  missed  an  easy  question  that  he  and  his  teammates  had
questioned each other about earlier.  He states that he felt so  stupid  for
missing the question that he made the change rather than leaving it alone.

He requests that he not be sentenced to a punishment that  will  affect  him
for the rest of his life for stupid mistakes he  made  at  age  20,  and  is
asking for consideration for a second chance.  He  states  he  is  currently
working full time with plans to enter college next semester, and  wishes  to
reenter the military once he has obtained his college degree.

Applicant’s complete response to the Air Force Evaluation  is  contained  at
Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice warranting  changes  to  the  applicant’s
reenlistment code.  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 office of primary responsibility  and  adopt
its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or  injustice.   The  discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge  authority,  and  his
uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance  with  DoD
and AF instructions.  Additionally, applicant did not  submit  any  evidence
or identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing and provided no  facts  warranting  a  change  to  his  RE  code.
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application.

4.  We also find insufficient evidence to warrant  a  recommendation  that
the reenlistment code be changed  on  the  basis  of  clemency.   We  have
considered applicant's  overall  quality  of  service,  the  events  which
precipitated the discharge, and note that he has not been  separated  long
enough to provide compelling evidence related to  post-service  activities
and accomplishments for us to conclude that  applicant  has  overcome  the
behavioral traits which  caused  the  discharge.   Based  on  the  current
evidence of record, we cannot recommend approval.

________________________________________________________________

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-2006-03061
in Executive Session on 25 January 2007, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
                       Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The Board unanimously recommended the application  be  denied.   Mr.  Wolffe
suggests  he  request  reconsideration  once   he   is   able   to   provide
documentation indicating that he has successfully  completed  at  least  two
years of undergraduate education; however, he does  not  wish  to  submit  a
Minority Report.
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 06.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Nov 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Dec 06.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair