RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01453
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED


            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reentry (RE) code be changed from 2B “Separated with a general, or
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge,  to  1T  “Air
National Guard and United States Air Force Reserve airmen  serving  on
voluntary or involuntary extended active duty,” or  any  favorable  RE
code that would allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was  no  error  or  injustice  committed  during  his  discharge
processing or subsequent to his discharge from the Air Force.  He made
some bad decisions  that  negatively  affected  his  career.   He  has
matured since his discharge and  would  like  to  enlist  in  the  Air
National Guard to continue his military career.

In support of the appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, a  copy  of
his resume, copies  of  his  DA  Form  7222,  Senior  System  Civilian
Evaluation Report Support Form, numerous letters of  appreciation  and
accomplishments, and excerpts from his military personnel records.

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
2 Feb 79, for a term of four years and was progressively  promoted  to
the grade of technical  sergeant.   On  15  May  95,  the  applicant's
commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged  from
the Air Force for Discreditable Involvement with Civilian or  Military
Authorities.  The commander recommended he receive a UOTHC discharge.

The bases for the commander’s recommendation were that:

            a.  On 25 Mar 93, he received an Article  15,  nonjudicial
punishment,  for  operating  a  passenger  vehicle  while  drunk   and
wrongfully departing the scene  of  an  accident  without  making  his
identity known.

            b.  On 31 Aug 93, he received an Article 15 for driving on
base while his base driving privileges were revoked.

            c.  On 7 Nov 94, he received a Letter  of  Reprimand,  for
driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs.

            d.  On 26 Apr 95, he was  convicted  and  sentenced  by  a
special court martial for  wrongfully  sharing  information  about  an
actual Air Force promotion test or highlighted testable material to an
unauthorized individual.

He acknowledged receipt of the notification of  discharge,  and  after
consulting with counsel, submitted a conditional waiver of his  rights
associated with an administrative board hearing  contingent  upon  the
receipt of  no  less  than  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge.

The discharge case was reviewed by the base legal office and found  to
be legally sufficient to support discharge.

The discharge authority approved the separation  and  directed  he  be
discharged   with   a   UOTHC   discharge   without   probation    and
rehabilitation.  He was separated on 14 Sep 95, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation  of  Airmen,  (Discreditable
Involvement with Civilian or  Military  Authorities)  and  received  a
UOTHC discharge, and an RE code of 2B “Separated  with  a  general  or
UOTHC discharge.”  He served 16 years, 7 months and 13 days  of  total
active duty service.

The Air Force Discharge Review  Board  upgraded  his  discharge  to  a
general (under honorable conditions),  but  denied  a  change  to  his
narrative reason for separation and RE code.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends  denial.   DPSOA  states,  that  they  found  no
evidence  of  error  or  injustice;  nor  did  the  applicant   submit
persuasive evidence to support a change in his RE code.  RE  codes  in
the  number  one  series  are  reserved  for  members  considered  and
recommended for retention or immediate reenlistment in the  Air  Force
or eligible for prior service enlistment.

The DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He made some poor decisions while he was in the Air  Force  and  holds
himself responsible.  His career started off great and  after  hitting
several bumps, his career  went  into  a  tail  spin.   He  has  since
straightened out his life and would like to serve in the Air  National
Guard.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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  to  warrant  changing  the
applicant’s RE 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.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2008-
01453 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 09, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member
                 Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered under Docket  Number
BC-2008-01453:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 14 Apr 08, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 May 08.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 08.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jun 08.




      BARBARA A. WESTGATE
      Panel Chair