RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02241 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to a code which would allow him to reenlist. His narrative reason for separation (Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service) and corresponding separation code (JDA) be changed. His time in service be adjusted to qualify for the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was honest and upfront regarding the experimental use of marijuana. He would not deliberately misrepresent himself and ruin his military career. Members of his family served and retired from the United States Air Force and Navy. He desires to reenlist. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 October 2013. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service. The specific reasons are as follows: a. On the applicant’s SF86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions), dated 21 November 2013, he disclosed that he used marijuana twice in April 2009 and April 2010. On 6 January 2014 in his pre-screening interview for your security clearance, he admitted to using marijuana twice in 2011, prior to his enlistment. In his sworn statement, dated 10 March 2014, he stated that he used marijuana twice, once on 20 April 2010 and once on 20 April 2011, prior to his enlistment. b. In the undated Statement of Reasons for his security clearance, a discrepancy was noted between the applicant’s SF86 which listed his last use of marijuana in 2010 and his pre- screening interview, which listed his last use of marijuana as being twice in 2011. c. The applicant deliberately misrepresented and/or concealed these facts on his 19 March 2013 DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States), which he certified as true and correct on 15 October 2013; and his 8 March 2013 AFI IMT 2030 (USAF Drug and Alcohol Abuse Certificate), which he certified as true and correct on 15 October 2013. He was advised of his rights in this matter and elected to submit a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed an entry level separation. The applicant was discharged on 7 April 2014. He served 5 months and 23 days on active duty. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial to change the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and corresponding SPD code. However, they recommend correcting the character of service to reflect uncharacterized in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. In this case, the commander initiated discharge action on 20 March 2014. At the time the discharge action was initiated, the applicant had 157 days of continuous active service. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the applicant's DD Form 214. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any injustice in the processing of his discharge. The DPSOR complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. DPSIT states the applicant’s application is not supported with evidence that he was a victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s time in service does not warrant the time of aggregated service for Post-9/11 GI Bill qualification; therefore, the applicant does not qualify for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. There is no injustice to the extent that the service member did not receive adequate counseling as required by law and DoD regulation. The DPSIT complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the RE code 2C is required based on the entry level separation with uncharacterized character of service. The applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that warrants a reenlistment eligible RE code - but wants to reenter the military. Although AFPC/DPSOR is recommending correcting the applicant’s erroneous “honorable” character of service to “uncharacterized”, this correction will not affect the applicants RE code 2C. The DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 10 November 2014, a copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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 is timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the separation code and narrative reason for separation assigned were proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. In addition, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe that a change to his RE code to allow him to reenlist is warranted. We took note of AFPC/DPSOR recommendation to change his characterization of service from honorable to uncharacterized. However, the recommended change is not within the purview of the Board since the change can be construed as a detrimental action. With regard to the applicant’s request for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, we agree that the applicant’s time in service does not qualify him for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Therefore, we agree with 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 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 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-2014-02241 in Executive Session on 5 February 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02241 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 May 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 20 June 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 4 August 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 October 2014. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 November 2014.