RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00077
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Separation Program Designator (SPD) be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The separation code on his DD 214 is JKL.  It has been brought to his attention that JKL is sexual perversion or shirking.  His separation code was supposed to be misconduct.  This has been negatively reflecting upon him during several application processes for employment.  His discharge had nothing to do with anything of a sexual nature or shirking.  He feels as though there was a clerical oversight or error when completing the DD 214.  At the time of discharge, while the paperwork was being filled out, he questioned the meaning of the alphabetized separation code and he was told that he didn’t need to know.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits two copies of his DD Form 214, and a page from the listing of the SPD codes.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 December 1999 for a period of four years, in the grade of airman.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class.  He received one EPR, in which the evaluation was “5.”

On 21 February 2002, the commander notified him that he was recommending an under honorable conditions (general) discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.52, for attempting to wrongfully use 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or some derivative thereof, commonly known as ecstasy, a Schedule I controlled substance.  For this offense, he had received punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, which included reduction to the grade of airman and 15 days of extra duty.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and his understanding of his right to consult with counsel and submit statements in his behalf.  He also indicated he understood that this action may result in his discharge from the Air Force with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  The discharge authority approved the separation and ordered an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without P&R.

Applicant was separated from the Air Force on 5 March 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (misconduct), and received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge with a separation code of JKL (misconduct) and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2B.  He served two years, two months and seven days on active duty.

On 22 April 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of discharge to honorable, a change to the reason and authority for the discharge, and a change to his reenlistment code.  A copy of the AFDRB hearing record is attached.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In reference to the applicant’s contention that SPD code “JKL” indicates he was separated for “sexual perversion” or “shirking”, AFPC/DPPRS states, in fact, JKL indicates “misconduct.” Additionally, AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.52, stipulates that airmen are subject to discharge for misconduct based on the commission of a serious offense and includes other offenses such as:  Sexual Perversion (paragraph 5.52.1), Prolonged Unauthorized Absence (paragraph 5.52.2), and Other Serious Offenses (paragraph 5.52.3).  In this case, the reason for his discharge was that on or about 1 September 2000 and on or about 31 January 2001, he attempted to wrongfully use 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or some derivative thereof, commonly known as ecstasy.

They recommend denial of the applicant’s request.  They are of the opinion that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 February 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or 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 their rationale as the basis for the 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 22 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number, BC-2004-00077, was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Feb 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.

					
					Panel Chair