RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02370
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of “2B” (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge) and Separation Code of “JFF” (Secretarial Authority) be changed.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been serving in the Army Guard for seven years and served in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) honorably.  He has applied for an AGR (Air Guard Reserve) position and was found not eligible due to his separation code.  

In support of his request, applicant provides copies of his DD Forms 214 for the periods ending 12 August 1999 and 31 May 2004, and a copy of the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record.  The applicant’s complete 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 18 November 1998.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman (E-2), effective and with a date of rank of 18 May 1999.  

On 8 May 1999, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the appointed time.  For this incident, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).

On 11 June 1999, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to pick up a letter, clean an overhead projector and to secure a portable wall partition.  For this incident, he received an LOC.  

On 18 June 1999, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to fill two fire water bottles.  For this incident, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).  

On 20 July 1999, the applicant disobeyed a direct order by misusing the government e-mail system by sending numerous personal e-mails.  For this incident, he received an LOR.  

On 5 August 1999, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge proceedings against him under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49, for Minor Disciplinary Infractions.  The applicant was notified of his commander’s recommendation and that a general discharge was being recommended.  He was advised of his rights; he waived his right to counsel and 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 10 August 1999, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.  Subsequently, on 18 June 2004, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions and received a general discharge with an RE Code of “2B.”  He served 8 months and 25 days on active duty. 

On 28 February 2000, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed and granted the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable.  Additionally, his Narrative Reason for Separation was changed from “Misconduct” to “Secretarial Authority” and his Separation Code was changed from “JKN” (Discharge No Board Entitlement) to “JFF” (Secretarial Authority).  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the applicant’s RE Code be changed to “2C” (Involuntary separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service).  DPPAE advises that the RE Code of “2C” correctly reflects the characterization directed by the AFDRB.  The AFPC/DPPAE complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that 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.  The AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant states he has done well in the Army National Guard and is currently a sergeant/E-5.  He is working as a Training NCO through the AGR program and recently learned that he would not be considered to continue on a permanent basis due to his separation code.  He was not aware that this code would hinder his career opportunities with the military.  Had he known this code would affect him in a negative manner, he would have originally requested his code to be changed.  The applicant’s complete letter is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting the requested corrective action.  While not clearly stated by the applicant, it appears he is requesting that his RE and SPD codes be changed to codes which will allow his immediate reenlistment.  By virtue of the AFDRB decision to upgrade the characterization of his service to honorable and change the narrative reason for his separation, his SPD code was changed to correspond with the narrative reason.  However, as noted by the office of primary responsibility, his RE code should have been changed to “2C” to correctly correspond with the upgrade of his characterization of service to honorable.  This error will be corrected administratively.  Other than this administrative correction, we find no evidence and are not persuaded by his assertions, that further correction to his records is warranted.  In view of the above, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2007-02370 in Executive Session on 8 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-02370 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 July 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 14 August 2007.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 August 2007.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 October 2007.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 October 2007.