RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01722
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL: THE AMERICAN LEGION
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  narrative  reason  for   separation   (Misconduct)   and   reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow him  to  attend  school  and
use his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation and RE code he  received  is  preventing
him from using his MGIB.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  25  November  2002  in  the
grade of airman basic.  He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
airman first class having assumed that grade effective and with  a  date  of
rank of 24 January 2003.

On 26 April 2005, the applicant was notified by his commander of her  intent
to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under  the  provisions
of  AFPD  36-32  and   AFI   36-3208,   paragraph   5.49   (Misconduct-Minor
Disciplinary Infractions).   The  specific  reasons  for  this  action  were
numerous Letters of Counseling (LOCs) for failure  to  go,  for  failing  to
attend a Fitness Assessment Monitor Class  and  failure  to  accomplish  the
required computer based training  as  he  was  instructed  to  do,  and  for
leaving his place of duty after being  told  to  stand  by  prior  to  being
released for the duty day.  He also received Letters of Reprimand (LOR)  for
driving a vehicle between the wing tips of two aircrafts  and  speeding  and
for driving his vehicle on the grass area at his dormitory.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the
notification  on  that  same  date.   After  consulting  with  counsel,  the
applicant elected to submit statements  on  his  own  behalf.   In  a  legal
review of the case file, the deputy staff  judge  advocate  found  the  case
legally sufficient and recommended discharge.

On 5 May 2005, the discharge authority concurred  with  the  recommendations
and  directed  discharge  with  a  general  (under   honorable   conditions)
discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.  Applicant  was  discharged
on 6 May 2005.  He served 2 years, 5 months and 12 days on active duty.

On 17 March 2008, the Air Force Discharge Review  Board  (AFDRB)  considered
and approved the applicant’s  request  that  his  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge  be  upgraded  to  an  honorable  discharge;  however,
denied  his  request  to  change  his  RE  code  and  narrative  reason  for
separation (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states based on  the  documentation  on
file in the master personnel records, 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 or injustices  that  occurred  in
the discharge processing warranting a  change  to  his  separation  code  or
narrative reason for separation.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states in March 2008  his  general
(under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  was  upgraded  to  an   honorable
discharge; however, his separation code remained  the  same  preventing  him
from using his MGIB that he paid  for  to  advance  his  education,  live  a
better life and the ability  to  reenter  the  service.   The  RE  code  and
narrative reason for separation he received are detrimental to  his  future.
While in the Air Force his goals were to finish training and  upgrade  to  a
five skill level in order to advance in his career and go  to  school  using
his MGIB.  Life after separation was very  difficult  because  his  benefits
were taken away.  After moving back to Massachusetts he was hired  at  Ocean
Spray, became a Sunday school teacher and continued to  work  on  rebuilding
what was lost and use his benefits to advance both in  life  and  education.
He has continued to work with several charities to help  make  a  difference
in the lives of children.

The applicant’s complete submission 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record,  it  is  our  opinion  that  given  the  circumstances
surrounding his separation from the Air  Force,  the  narrative  reason  for
separation and reentry code assigned were proper and in compliance with  the
appropriate  instructions.   Therefore,  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  either  an  error  or  injustice.   In  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2008-
01722 in Executive Session on 24 September 2008,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member
                 Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 April 2008, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Record.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 17 July 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 and 2 August 2008.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 September 2008, w/atch.




                 CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                 Panel Chair