RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05947

		COUNSEL:  NONE 

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected to change the reentry (RE) code of 4H, 
"Serving Suspended Punishment Pursuant to Article 15, Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)," to allow him to reenlist in 
the Army National Guard.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An Army National Guard recruiter brought it to his attention 
that the RE code on his DD Form 214 does not allow him to 
reenlist into any branch of the Armed Forces.  The recruiter 
also told him the RE code is not consistent with his separation 
code JBK, "Completion of Required Active Service" and his 
honorable characterization of service.  

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his 
DD Form 214.  

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
31 March 1993.

According to copies of documents extracted from the Automated 
Records Management System (ARMS), by way of an AF Form 3070, 
Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, the applicant's 
commander offered him nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings 
under Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ), on 
13 March 2000, for two specifications of a violation of Article 
134, "Debt, dishonorably failing to pay".  The applicant 
accepted the NJP on 21 March 2000, and waived his right to trial 
by court-martial.  He elected to consult counsel and submit a 
written statement on his behalf, however, he declined to make a 
personal appearance before his commander.  On 24 March 2000, the 
commander determined the applicant did commit the offenses and 
imposed the Article 15.  The applicant's imposed punishment was 
suspension of a reduction to the grade of Airman First Class, 
until 23 September 2000, after which time it would be remitted 
without further action, unless sooner vacated, and a reprimand.  
The applicant did not appeal the commander's decision.  The 
Article 15 proceedings were reviewed and determined to be 
legally sufficient.  

On 10 September 2000, the applicant was released from active 
duty with an honorable characterization of service and was 
credited with 7 years, 5 months, and 6 days of active duty 
service.  

______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states the applicant 
received an Article 15 and upon his release from active duty on 
10 September 2000, was given an RE code of 4H based on serving a 
suspended punishment that did not expire until 
23 September 2000.  The applicant contends his RE code is in 
error based on its being incompatible with his honorable 
characterization of service, however, all members who separate 
with a 4H RE code get an honorable character of service.  

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 17 February 2013 for review and comment within 
30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.  

________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, 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 the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 17 October 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-05947:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 18 Dec 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 11 Feb 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 2013. 




                                   
                                   Panel Chair