ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05567-3

						COUNSEL: 

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, should be amended to reflect the following:

      a. Item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) airman first class rather than airman.

      b. Item 4b (Pay Grade) E3 rather than E2.

      c. Item 26 (Separation Code) “JDM” rather than “JKN”.

      d. Item 27 (Reentry Code) “lA” (Ineligible to reenlist, but condition waived) rather than “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service).

      e. Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) “Early Release” rather than “Misconduct”.

2. The punishment imposed upon him under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 4 January 2002 and 20 August 2002 be set aside and removed from his record.

3. The Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 18 July 2001 through 17 July 2002 be set aside and removed from his record.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 September 2013, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request as indicated below:

1. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, should be amended to reflect the following:

a. Item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) senior airman rather than airman.

b. Item 4b (Pay Grade) E4 rather than E2.

c. Item 26 (Separation Code) “JDM” rather than “JKN”.

d. Item 27 (Reentry Code) “lA” (Ineligible to reenlist, but condition waived) rather than “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service).

e. Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) “Early Release” rather than “Misconduct”.

2. The punishment imposed upon him under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 4 January 2002 and 20 August 2002 be set aside and removed from his record.

3. The Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 18 July 2001 through 17 July 2002 be set aside and removed from his record.

For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit H.

In October 2013, the applicant requested reconsideration of his appeal; however, the Board staff determined his request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board.

In an application dated 26 February 2016, the applicant seeks reconsideration of his earlier request.  He states that his request varies from his previous appeal.  He has been suffering set-backs due to his military record and has been denied job prospects and opportunities to be accepted by universities in his field of study.  He states that he provides new evidence that was not part of and was not considered in connection with the previous Board’s decision.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  In earlier findings, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action.  After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in support of this appeal to include his request amending his DD Form 214 to reflect his rank as airman fist class - we do not believe the applicant has overcome the rationale expressed in the previous decision.  We note the new evidence submitted by the applicant with his reconsideration request, the letter withdrawing the Article 15 issued in November 2001.  In this letter, the commander stated, “Please be advised that this withdrawal does not imply that I have determined you innocent of the alleged offenses, nor does it prevent reconsideration at a later date.”  According to the applicant’s own affidavit, the commander then issued a new Article 15 in December of 2001, which the applicant’s next EPR captured.  Thus, the new evidence does not change the fundamental basis for the actions taken by the applicant’s leadership.  Therefore, we do not find the additional evidence sufficient to warrant the relief sought and we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the applicant’s request.

2.  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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2012-05567-3 in Executive Session on 18 July 2017, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 26 September 2013,
	w/atchs.
   Exhibit I.  DD Form 149, dated 26 February 2016, w/atchs.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings.