RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00375 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation (Misconduct) and his separation code of “JKL” be changed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His separation code is in error and in order to find employment he needs it corrected. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 15 Jun 00, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years. On 9 Aug 02, the applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for commission of a serious crime, specifically one or more indecent acts or offenses with a child under the age of 16. On or about 9 Dec 01 and 18 Jan 02, the applicant did commit indecent acts with the body of a female under 16 years of age, not his wife, by allowing her to perform oral sex on him with intent to gratify his sexual desires. For this offense, he received an Article 15, dated 23 Jul 02, which resulted in a reduction to the grade of Airman Basic (AB). The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of his right to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R). P&R was considered; however, the applicant was warned by the first sergeant to stay away from the girl and was well aware she was underage, yet, he still pursued the victim. According to his commander, the applicant had demonstrated neither the potential nor the capacity to be rehabilitated. On 22 Aug 02, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct” and a separation code of JKL. He was credited with 2 year, 2 months and 8 days of active duty service. On 20 Nov 12, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have his discharge upgraded; however, the AFDRB denied his application. They concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. (See AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating 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 instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOR found no error or injustice in the applicant's discharge from the Air Force, nor did the applicant submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing. AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.52 states, that under the Manual of Courts Martial (MCM), airmen are subject to discharge for misconduct based on the commission of a serious offense if a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense. Discharge processing should be initiated if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation. As reflected in the applicant's discharge package, the applicant committed indecent acts with a minor under the age of 16 while the applicant was 21 years of age at the time. This type of behavior falls under AFI 36-3208, para 5.52.1, Sexual Perversion. Accordingly, the SPD code "JKL" for this type of misconduct is correct as indicated on the applicant's DD Form 214. In addition, AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.18.2, states if an airman's service has been honest and faithful, a general, under honorable conditions service characterization is warranted when significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman's military record. The seriousness of this offense clearly outweighed any positive aspects of the applicant's brief Air Force career. Therefore, a general service characterization was most appropriate in this case. The complete DPSOR 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 21 Mar 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 an 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2014-00375 in Executive Session on 20 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00375 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 19 Feb 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 14.