RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02498
            INDEX CODE:  100.00, 110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

2.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow  him  reentry
into the military.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It has been eight years since he left the Air Force.   He  has  matured  and
has grown up.  He obtained a Nursing degree and would like  the  opportunity
to use his degree as an officer.

In support of his request,  applicant  provided  two  letters  of  character
reference.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28 Oct 98, in  the  grade  of
airman basic, for a period of six years.

On 29 Jun 99, the squadron commander notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending he be discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for  misconduct.   The
reasons for the proposed discharge were:  (1) a Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)
on  12  Apr  99,  for  misrepresented  statements  to  several   physicians,
noncommissioned officers, and a commissioned officer; (2) a  LOR  on  4  Feb
99,   for   disobeying   a   direct   order;   (3)   an   AETC   Form   341,
Excellence/Discrepancy Report, for being late to formation; (4) a  Memo  for
Record on   22 Apr 99, for his attitude towards student leaders; (5)  a  LOR
on 30 Apr 99, for interfering with student leaders and  being  disrespectful
(repeat violation); (6) a Letter of Counseling on 30 Apr 99, for  disrespect
and failing to give an AETC Form 341 when told to; and (7) an Article 15  on
24 May 99, for using, displaying, and possessing a  portable  telephone  and
willfully impersonating a noncommissioned officer.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of  discharge  and  after
consulting with legal counsel, submitted a  statement  in  his  own  behalf.
The base legal office found the case file legally sufficient and on  19  Jul
99, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed  a  general
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was discharged on 22 Sep 99, in the grade of airman  basic,  under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by  reason  of  misconduct,  and  received  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He was issued  an  RE  code
of 2B (separated with a general discharge).  He served on active duty for  a
period of 8 months, and 25 days.

On 25 May 00, applicant appeared  before  the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) requesting that his discharge be  upgraded  to  honorable  and
his RE code be changed to allow his return to military service.   The  Board
found that  neither  the  evidence  of  record  nor  that  provided  by  the
applicant substantiated an inequity or  impropriety  that  would  justify  a
change of discharge or an  upgrade  of  his  RE  code.   The  Board  further
concluded that no legal or equitable basis exists  for  an  upgrade  of  his
discharge or a change to the RE code.  A copy of the  AFDRB  Hearing  Record
is attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states based on  the  documentation  on
file, the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  discharge  was  within  the
discretion of the discharge authority.  He provided no evidence of an  error
or injustice that occurred during his discharge processing and  he  provided
no facts warranting a change to his discharge.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA  recommends  denial.   DPSOA  found  no  evidence  of  error   or
injustice, nor did the applicant submit evidence of an error  or  injustice.
The RE code for such a characterization as directed by the commander is  2B.
 Additionally, if he is seeking enlistment with another branch  of  service,
the enlisting component may waive the Air Force RE code.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 29 Feb 08, copies of the Air Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  To date,  a  response  has
not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
available evidence, the discharge appears  to  be  in  compliance  with  the
governing regulations in effect at the time  and  we  find  no  evidence  to
indicate  that  the  applicant’s  separation  from   the   Air   Force   was
inappropriate.  At the time a member is separated from the Air  Force,  they
are furnished an RE Code predicated upon the quality of  their  service  and
the circumstances of their separation.  The RE code which was issued at  the
time of applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of  his
separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust.   We  note
that an RE code of 2B, while barring him  from  reenlistment  with  the  Air
Force, may be waived by another branch of military service.   Therefore,  in
view of the above findings and 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  Docket  Number     BC-2007-
02498 in Executive Session on 29 April 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
02498 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 15 Feb 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 19 Feb 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Feb 08.




                                             GREGORY A. PARKER
                                             Panel Chair