RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01938
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be corrected to reflect a separation code and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code other than “JBK” and “4H”, respectively.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received an Article 15 six months prior to his separation but feels he was not discharged because of the Article 15.  He was able to separate during the force reshaping that was going on at the time period. His flight chief felt it necessary to give him the codes mentioned above because of personal and unprofessional feelings his supervisor had toward him.  Since his separation, he has shown himself to be an upstanding citizen and very committed to his country.  He would like to continue to serve as a civilian for the Department of Defense (DOD).  His current job as a civilian entails the same duties as his Air Force Specialty (AFS) in the Air Force.  He feels it is unjust that one man’s personal opinion could prevent him from serving his country.  His goal is to join the Air Force Reserve.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 September 2001.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (SRA).  On 3 May 2004, he was punished with an Article 15 for violation of Articles 86 (Absent without leave), 92 (Failure to obey an order or regulation) and 107 (False official statement) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The applicant was reduced in grade from SRA to Airman, with reduction below airman first class (A1C) suspended until 2 November 2004, unless sooner remitted.  His new date of rank (DOR) for A1C was 3 May 2004.  He also received a letter of reprimand (LOR).  He was separated under the provisions of the Military Personnel Flight Memorandum (MPDMD) 04-05 under the Force Shaping Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback program.  Specifically, he was serving on a suspended punishment pursuant to an Article 15 at the time of his separation.  Therefore his RE code was established as “4H”, Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, UCMJ.  His SPD code was established as “JBK”, Completion of Required Service.  He was honorably discharged on 15 September 2004 after having served for 2 years, 11 months, and 21 days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE states he was serving the suspended portion of the nonjudicial punishment when he separated.  Therefore the RE code is correct.

DPPAE’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states the DOS Rollback Program allowed commanders to accelerate the DOS of airmen with specific RE codes.  The applicant met the eligibility criteria to be separated under the fiscal year 2004 (FY04) Force Shaping Program of having an RE code of either 2X, 4H or 4I.  He also had less than 14 years of total active service at the time of his separation.  In accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, “Airmen separating with RE code 4H or 4I will be separated with SPD code JBK.”  He was serving on a suspended punishment pursuant to an Article 15 at the time of his separation thereby validating the SPD and RE code he received.  Further, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change to his SPD code.

DPPRS’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 August 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01938 in Executive Session on 20 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 June 2007.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 9 July 2007, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 July 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 August 2007.