RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01938 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following be changed on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty: Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JKN;” Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B;” and General under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After carefully reviewing her military records, she found nothing that indicates misconduct. She has a medal/ribbon for good conduct, positive evaluation records from supervisors and never lost rank or pay. The request to her commander regarding the discharge was due to discussion about injury and permanent profile. She was unable to change Military Occupation Specialty (MOS) because of the non-availability of positions. The board should find it in the interest of justice to review her untimely application because she is currently completing her Master’s Degree and entering a PhD program in forensic psychology. The general discharge influences her ability to obtain a top-secret security clearance for a detective position. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 Aug 94, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 21 Oct 97, the applicant received a general, under honorable conditions discharge. She was credited with 3 years, 1 month and 28 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant did not file a timely petition. It has been almost 17 years since the applicant’s separation and the length of time has allowed her record to be absent document. Furthermore, the applicant did not explain the reason for filing late and for failing to file within the 3 years of her discharge. There is no discharge documentation in the applicant’s record. Therefore, DPSOR must go with the presumption of regularity in this case. Based on a presumption of regularity, the applicant was most likely notified by her commander that she was being recommended for discharge for misconduct (minor disciplinary infractions). In addition, the commander would have informed the applicant of the type of discharge characterization being recommended to the discharge authority. Furthermore, the commander would have provided a detailed explanation of the infractions committed by the applicant as reasons why he was recommending discharge. Based on the presumption of regularity, the applicant would have been required to acknowledge receipt of the notification of discharge and afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in her own behalf. Based on the presumption of regularity, the base legal office would have reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation. Based on the presumption of regularity, the base separations authority would have approved the discharge and directed the applicant be separated with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. Based on presumption of regularity, it would have been determined that the applicant would have been afforded the opportunity to overcome her deficiencies. Her commander would have concluded that her failure to adjust her conduct despite rehabilitative opportunities showed that probation and rehabilitation did not work and that discharge was warranted. Based on AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 1.18.2, a general discharge is appropriate when “significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the airman’s military record.” Based on the presumption of regularity, the discharge authority must have determined that the applicant’s misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of her military service. Based on the presumption of regularity, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her RE code. The applicant’s contentions are about her discharge for misconduct as she states she never “acted in misconduct”. DPSOA defers to the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) to validate her discharge processing. Her RE code 2B is correct based on her involuntary discharge with a general character of service. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicates the reason she did not request a change to her DD Form 214 within three years of separation is because she was not aware she could request a change and it is not something one is told during discharge. The Board should note how current her performance reports were before her separation. After reviewing the DD Form 214, she noticed the narrative reason for separation as misconduct. She is not sure why the document states that because she was never in a position for any type of rehabilitation. For two of the three year term, she was on a constant profile for knee issues which she received 10% disability. After her separation, she had no use for her DD Form 214 because she had a childcare business in Georgia. During the 14 years after her separation, she went to college with the intent of eventually completing a PhD in forensic psychology. In the course her Master’s Degree studies, she discovered certification requirements included the ability to obtain a top secret security clearance, which she would not be able to do without an honorable discharge. Per the letter she was sent in October, she requested a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check and is still awaiting the response. In Georgia, she was required by law to pass a local and federal background check, before certification. She never lost her certification and was consistently given an “A” rating. She was even asked to go to other centers to provide business advice on running a daycare center. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. 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, to include her rebuttal of the Air Force advisories, 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01938 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 Jul 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 7 Nov 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Dec 14.