RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00019
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  8 JULY 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code and Narrative Reason for discharge be changed.  In addition, he would like his grade of A1C (E-3) rank be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes he was treated unfairly during his Air Force service.  During his appearance before the Air Force Discharge Review Board, he was unable to remember details he believes would have helped him in his case.  He now remembers certain facts that could help the Board make a more equitable decision.   

In support of his request, he submits four character reference letters.  His submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) on 15 November 2001.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3), with a date of rank of 15 September 2002.  Applicant performed duties as an Aircraft Loadmaster.

On 23 March 2004, the applicant was charged with overindulgence in intoxicating liquor, not properly performing his duties and wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages within 12 hours of takeoff.  For this incident, punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed.  He received a reduction to the grade of airman (E-2) and a Letter of Reprimand. 

On 10 March 2004, the applicant failed to show for his Emergency Procedures Evaluation at his appointed place of duty.  For this incident, he received a Letter of Reprimand.  

On 18 September 2002, the applicant was charged with being drunk and disorderly.  For this incident, punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed.  He received a reduction to airman basic and thirty days correctional custody, suspended.   

On 26 April 2004, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge proceedings against him under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2, for a Pattern of Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.  The applicant was notified of his commander’s recommendation and that a general discharge was being recommended.  He was advised of his rights; he consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that he be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge and concurred with the commander that the applicant not be considered for probation and rehabilitation.  On 6 May 2004, the discharge authority directed that he be discharged with a general discharge.  Subsequently, on 18 June 2004, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Pattern of Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline) and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with an RE Code of “2B” (Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge).  He served 2 years, 7 months, and 3 days on active duty. 

On 15 November 2005, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed and granted the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable.  Pursuant, the AFDRB’s decision showing that he received an honorable discharge, his RE code was changed from “2B” to “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service). However, the DRB denied the applicant’s request to upgrade the RE code and change the reason and authority for the discharge. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, they conclude that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the applicant did not identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.  The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied.  DPPPWB states the commander was acting within his authority when he reduced the applicant under Article 15 and subsequently recommended him for discharge.  The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied.  JA states the applicant’s records illustrate that in the relatively short time he served on active duty he failed to correct his behavior despite repeated nonjudicial punishments and a reprimand.  JA opines that although it is commendable that the applicant has the support of many members of his community today, this is immaterial to the narrative reason for his discharge, his RE code, and whether his commander was justified for reducing him in rank for his alcohol-related offenses.  The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that since he separated from the Air Force he has continued with his study and employment in the field of Information Technology.  He is a student at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University and is over half way done with a Bachelor Degree in Professional Aeronautics and a member of the professional loadmaster association.  Since his separation from the Air Force, a very large part of his life is missing.  He asks that he be given the chance to again defend this country.  Applicant’s letter, with character reference letters, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are persuaded the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to warrant a change to his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code and Narrative reason.  Although the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge and the RE code he received were accurate, we believe that based on the numerous character reference letters which describe his exemplary work ethic and commitment to again serve his country and in consideration of the Discharge Review Board’s finding that his overall quality of service is accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge, we believe he should be given the opportunity to apply for enlistment.  Therefore, we believe the reason for his separation should be changed to “Secretarial Authority” with a separation code of “JFF” and his RE code be changed to “3K.”  Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would warrant his grade of A1C (E-3) be restored.  Notwithstanding the above, evidence has not been provided which would lead us to conclude that his demotion to airman was inappropriate.  The record shows that the applicant did have alcohol-related offenses and the reduction in rank punishment was warranted under the circumstances.  In the absence of evidence to indicate that the information contained in his records is erroneous or that his commander abused his discretionary authority, we find no basis to recommend granting this portion of the applicant’s request.  

5.  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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 18 June 2004, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Secretarial Authority, and issued a Separation Program Designator of “JFF” and issued a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “3K” rather than “2C.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-00019 in Executive Session on 11 May 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Mar 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Mar 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 12 Apr 06,
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.