RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05443 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His type of discharge be changed to an uncharacterized form of entry-level separation. 2. The words, “Entry-Level Performance and Conduct” Be removed from block 28 of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not a conduct problem. While in the service, he was emotional due to family stress. He was not a discipline problem. He was also the victim of whistle-blower retaliation. When he called the military police on a fellow trainee, he was threatened and intimidated by this trainee. In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a personal statement, letters of support, a copy of his Bachelor of Arts Degree in Public Administration, and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 March 1998. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208. The specific reasons follow: a. On 10 June 1998, the applicant failed to report for a counseling session as ordered. On 11 June 1998, he failed inspection and he showed up for his counseling session in a uniform which was out of standards. When ordered to iron his uniform, he failed to properly follow directions and to report back as ordered. He was counseled concerning his substandard performance. b. On 2 July 1998, the applicant was disrespectful and failed to follow guidelines concerning the use of an intercom. For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). c. On 7 July 1998, the applicant was evaluated by the Chief of Mental Health Services. He was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. His disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired, as demonstrated by his lack of effort to meet military standards. He also expressed a desire to leave the military. He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification. After consulting with counsel the applicant waived his right to submit a statement on his own behalf. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed discharge. The applicant was discharged on 4 August 1998 with an uncharacterized, entry-level separation. He served 5 months on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the applicant’s service characterization, narrative reason for separation and separation code is [sic] correct as reflected on his DD Form 214. Airmen are given entry level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service on his DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the service characterization was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge warranting a change to his reentry code or character of service. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 24 February 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). On 19 August 2013, a request for information pertaining to his post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 15 days (Exhibit E). The applicant states he is seeking clemency regarding his appeal. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during the discharge process. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence, which would lead us to believe the narrative reason for separation was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation. We note the applicant’s request for clemency, however, there was not sufficient evidence submitted to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis in the interest of justice. Based on the above comments, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-05443 in Executive Session on 12 September 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 November 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 February 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 February 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 August 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 September 2013, w/atchs. 4 3