RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02996 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. His Reentry (RE) code “2B” which denotes “Discharged Under General or Under Other than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC)” be changed to “1J” which denotes “Eligible to Reenlist but Elected to Separate.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility Data Display (REDD) report shows his RE code is “1J” instead of “2B.” Since “1J” is a reenlistment eligible RE code, he would like his discharge upgraded. In support of his requests, the applicant provides a copy of his REDD Report. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Oct 2002, the applicant entered active duty. On 20 May 2003, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions. The specific reasons for his actions were he was found in possession of tobacco while in phase I of technical training, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for smoking during the duty day while in uniform, failure to perform Charge of Quarters (CQ) duties, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for dereliction in the performance of his duties by being in his dormitory room instead of performing assigned details, a LOR for leaving the area in civilian clothes while in phase I, a LOR for driving a privately owned vehicle while in phase I and a LOR for assaulting a fellow airman by stabbing him repeatedly with a pen. On 20 May 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of notification, waived his right to consult counsel and declined to submit statements in his own behalf. On 22 May 2003, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient to support the basis for separation. The discharge authority approved the recommendation. On 30 May 2003, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct.” He served on active duty for 7 months and 16 days. On 28 Oct 2008, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied the applicant’s requests to upgrade his discharge, change his narrative reason for separation and RE code. The DRB concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. On 4 Mar 2014, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service. As of this date, this office has not received a response (Exhibit F). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge to include his character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. The commander stated before recommending the discharge that every effort was made by his supervision to rehabilitate him. However, the applicant demonstrated a lack of respect for authority and a total disregard for policies and procedures constantly throughout his military career. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code. RE code “2B” is required In Accordance With (IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, based on his involuntary discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service. The applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. He points to his REDD report used by recruiters showing “1J” as his RE code; however, his DD Form 214 is the official source document and reflects the applicant’s correct RE code of “2B.” The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 8 Nov 2013, the copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 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. In the interest of justice we considered upgrading the characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record of service and the lack of post-service documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on this basis is warranted. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. ____________________________________________________________ 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 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-2013-02996 in Executive Session on 15 Apr 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 2013, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 30 Aug 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 15 Oct 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Nov 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Mar 2014, w/atch. 1 2