RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01549

                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00
                                        COUNSEL: NONE
                                        HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 NOVEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason he was discharged was not bad enough to bar  him  from  re-
entering military service.  He was young and  made  mistakes.   He  is
older now and knows he can make them up.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of  his  DD  Form
214, a letter from the United States Army Recruiting Office, a  letter
from the  Office  of  the  Vice  President,  and  character  reference
statements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)  on  18 December
1993 for a period of four years as an airman basic (AB).

On 17 November 1997, the applicant’s commander notified  him  that  he
was recommending him for  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  under  the
provisions  of  Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI)   36-3208   for   minor
disciplinary infractions.  The  specific  reasons  for  the  discharge
action were:

a.    On 1 October 1996, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling
(LOC) for being derelict in the performance of his duties.

      b.    On 4 October 1996,  the  applicant  received  an  LOC  for
without authority  failing  to  go  at  the  time  prescribed  to  his
appointed place of duty.

      c.    On 7 October 1996, the  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) for writing a check with insufficient funds.

      d.    On 13 November 1996, the applicant  received  an  LOR  for
writing a check with insufficient funds.

      e.    On 8 October 1997, the applicant received an LOR for being
derelict in the performance of his duties on 1 August 1997.

      f.    On 8 October 1997, the applicant received an LOR for being
derelict in the performance of his duties on 22 September 1997.

      g.    On 5 November 1997, the  applicant  received  an  LOR  for
failing to pay his debts.

      h.    On 7 November 1997, the  applicant  received  an  LOR  for
failing to obey a lawful order.

The commander advised the applicant of his rights in this matter.

On 17  November  1997,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification of discharge and  after  consulting  with  legal  counsel
waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient  to
support separation and recommended  the  applicant  receive  an  under
honorable  conditions  (general)  discharge  without   probation   and
rehabilitation.

The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that  the
applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and
rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated from the AF on 21 November 1997 under  the
provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of   Airmen
(misconduct), with a general discharge and a RE  code  of  “2B”  which
denotes separated  with  a  general  or  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He served three years, eight months and
four days on active duty.

On 20 July 2005, the applicant appealed to  the  Air  Force  Discharge
Review Board  (AFDRB)  to  have  his  general  discharge  upgraded  to
honorable.  The AFDRB  considered  all  the  evidence  of  record  and
concluded  that  applicant’s  discharge  was   consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  authority;
that the applicant was provided full administrative due  process;  and
that no legal or  equitable  basis  existed  for  an  upgrade  of  the
applicant’s discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the requested relief be  denied.   DPPRS  states
the applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any  errors
or injustices that occurred in the processing of his discharge.  Based
upon the documentation in the applicant's  file,  DPPRS  believes  his
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and the discharge was  within
the sound discretion of the  discharge  authority.   Furthermore,  the
applicant has not provided any  facts  to  warrant  a  change  to  his
discharge or RE code.

AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8
June 2007, 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 an 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 its rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  The applicant is requesting his RE code  be
changed to allow him to reenter military service.  The  applicant  has
not provided any evidence showing that the assigned  RE  code  was  in
error or contrary to the prevailing regulation.  It appears  that  the
decision to separate the applicant was proper based on  his  situation
at the time and the RE code which  was  issued  at  the  time  of  his
discharge was proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives
and  accurately  reflected  the  circumstances  of   his   separation.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-01549  in  Executive  Session  on  28  August  2007,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
                       Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 May 07.
   Exhibit D.  SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jun 07.




                                        JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                        Panel Chair