RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00944
		INDEX CODE:  100.00, 110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	Item 11 (Primary Specialty) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), be corrected to reflect Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 3P051, Security Forces Journeyman, rather than 3S031, Personnel Apprentice.

2.	Apprentice Security Specialist Course, M60 Machine Gunners Course, Ground Combat Skills Level I, and ACC Quality Awareness Course, be added in Item 14 (Military Education) of his DD Form 214.

3.	His Under Honorable Conditions (General) Discharge be upgraded to Honorable.

4.	The reason for separation be changed to Dissatisfactory Service rather than Misconduct and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to 3A.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There are multiple errors on his DD Form 214 in Items 11 and 14.

The type of discharge was too harsh for the minor offenses he committed.  The first four years of service were honorable and it was not until the last six months of service that he was reprimanded.  The list of reprimands were so close together that he was not given ample time to overcome his deficiencies.  For this, he feels he was too harshly discharged.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) was 10 Oct 91.

Applicant received two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) reflecting overall ratings of “3.”

On 29 Mar 96, applicant was notified that his commander was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for Minor Disciplinary Infractions with service characterized as General.  The reasons for the commander’s actions were as follows:

		a.	On or about 19 Apr 95 and 14 Jun 95, he was derelict in the performance of his duties.  For this misconduct, he received an Article 15 on 11 Sep 95 which included a suspended reduction in grade from the grade of senior airman to the grade of airman first class and 30 days of extra duty.

		b.	On or about 26 Jul 95, he failed to go to a mandatory appointment.  For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 14 Aug 95.

		c.	On or about 7 Aug 95, he failed to go to a mandatory appointment.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR on 7 Aug 95.

		d.	On or about 17 Jan 96, he failed to obey a lawful regulation.  For this misconduct, he received a vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment which included a reduction in grade from the grade of senior airman to the grade of airman first class with a new date of rank (DOR) of 25 Sep 95.

		e.	On or about 18 Jan 96, he failed to adhere to standards of dress and appearance.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR on 19 Jan 96.

		f.	On or about 19 Jan 96, he failed to obey the orders of a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  For this misconduct, he received an LOR on 19 Jan 96.

		g.	On or about 23 Jan 96, he was financially irresponsible.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR on 24 Jan 96.

On 29 Mar 96, applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification letter.

On 8 Apr 96, after consulting with counsel, applicant submitted a written presentation requesting retention on active duty.

A legal review was conducted by the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) who found the applicant’s file legally sufficient to support the commander’s recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for Minor Disciplinary Infractions with a General discharge.  The SJA concurred with the Deputy SJA’s recommendation.

On 24 Apr 96, applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36‑3208 (Misconduct) with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge in the grade of airman first class.  He was credited with 4 years, 6 months, and 15 days of active service.

On 9 May 01, the Supt, USAF Education and Training Branch, Randolph AFB, Texas, administratively corrected Item 14 (Military Education) on applicant’s DD Form 214.  On 9 May 01, a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) was issued reflecting Apprentice Security Specialist, Apr 92; M60 Machine Gunner Qualification Course, Apr 92; Ground Combat Skills Course Level I, May 92, was added in Item 14 (Military Education) (see Exhibit C).

On 28 Aug 01, the Separation Procedures Manager, Separations Branch, Randolph AFB, Texas, administratively corrected Item 11 on applicant’s DD Form 214.  On 28 Aug 01, a DD Form 215 was issued reflecting 3PO51 - Security Forces Journeyman, 4 Years, in Item 11 (Primary Specialty) (see Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAC reviewed this application and indicated that a review of the documents provided by the applicant substantiates his claim that Item 11 does not reflect the AFSC in which he performed while on active duty.  The applicant provided a certificate of training indicating he completed the Apprentice Security Specialist Course on 17 Apr 92 and his record indicates that he performed duty as a Security Forces Journeyman from Apr 92 through Mar 96.  Therefore, based on DPPAC’s review, the applicant’s AFSC data, Item 11, should be corrected to reflect 3P051 - Security Forces Journeyman, 4 years.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and indicated that based on the documentation in the file, the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and he provided no facts warranting an upgrade of his discharge.  Accordingly, DPPRS recommends his records remain the same and his request that his discharge be upgraded be denied.  AFPC/DPPAT has already awarded the applicant the education courses he was authorized.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE also reviewed this application and indicated that a review of the applicant’s case file was conducted and the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B (Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge) is correct.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 7 Sep 01 for review and response within 30.  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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  Regarding applicant’s contentions that multiple errors were on his DD Form 214, we note that he has been provided an amended DD Form 214 with the applicable corrections verified and corrected administratively.  While the ACC Quality Awareness Course was not administratively corrected on his DD Form 214 as applicant requested, we note that only those courses that have a valid Personnel Data System (PDS) code can be updated to the DD Form 214.

4.	We have reviewed the applicant’s entire record and the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force in 1996.  If, as he asserts, he has overcome his difficulty, then we applaud him.  However, the reason for separation and RE code are correct based on the facts that existed at the time of his separation.  Although applicant has provided statements attesting to his post-service accomplishments, we do not find these achievements sufficient to offset the reason for his separation.  In view of the foregoing, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on the remainder of applicant’s requests.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 6 November 2001, under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Feb 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 4 May 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 May 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 4 Jun 01.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Sep 01.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair