RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02335 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The nonjudicial punishments he received under Article 15 be removed from his record. 2. His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge) be changed to “3K” (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate). 3. His separation program designator (SPD) code of “JKN” (Misconduct – Minor Infractions) and narrative reason for separation be changed to “KFF” (Secretarial Authority).” 4. He be awarded the Air Force Overseas Ribbon – Short Tour (AFOR-ST) (Administratively Resolved). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge was recently upgraded to honorable, for which he is very thankful. The punishments that he received while on active duty were unfair and unduly harsh. He is currently serving in the Army National Guard in the grade of E-4. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 1 Feb 06. On 10 Sep 09, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge for Misconduct: minor disciplinary infractions. The reason for the action included the following: a. On or about 28 May 09, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he left his vehicle without his assigned weapon while on post, for this incident charges were referred to a trial by summary court-martial, which resulted in a reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1). b. On or about 2 Feb 09, the applicant showed disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer by failing to salute, for this he received a letter of reprimand (LOR), which was filed in his unfavorable information file (UIF). c. On or about 3 May 07, the applicant failed to obey a lawful order by disclosing information in an ongoing investigation, for this he received a reduction to the grade of airman (E-2) suspended through 17 Jan 08, 20 days extra duty and a reprimand, which established his UIF. On 10 Sep 09, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and his right to consult with legal counsel and submit statements on his own behalf. On 18 Sep 09, the action was found to be legally sufficient and, on 23 Sep 09, the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation. On 9 Oct 09, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct,” an RE code 2B, and was credited with three years, eight months, and nine days of active service. On 6 Apr 12, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied the applicant’s requests to upgrade his discharge, change his narrative reason for separation and RE code. The Board 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 12 Dec 13, the applicant appeared before the DRB, with counsel. The Board majority approved the applicant’s request to upgrade his service characterization from general to honorable; however, the change of reason and authority for discharge, and change of RE code were denied. On 8 Aug 14, AFPC/DPSID directed the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 9 Oct 09, be corrected to add the AFOR-ST and will administratively correct the record. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the nonjudicial punishments (NJP) from his record, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant contends the action (the discharge for misconduct) was unfair and unduly harsh, but his demands lack objectivity. He entered the Air Force with greater pay and rank than his peers because he promised to serve six years; he barely made it past three. The applicant had at least two different commanders, from entirely different installations, examine his behavior alongside his peers and both believed he warranted NJP. He was trained in the area of law enforcement, and all three of his offenses reflect his flagrant disregard for rules, orders, or requirements. Both of his NJPs included reprimand language warning him of greater consequences unless he corrected his behavior, but he rejected the gravely serious admonitions. A defense of youthful indiscretion escapes him because he was initially punished at 19 years old and his criminal behavior escalated later at 22 years old. Moreover, his present request highlights his service in a hostile fire zone, yet downplays an offense of disrespecting a superior and a weapon-related dereliction of duty in the same combat-like environment. The applicant was warned about following standards, he was provided due process, he was provided an opportunity to consult with counsel, and he was given the opportunity to prove himself to at least two commanders. After carefully reviewing the record, no clear injustice, error or good cause has been found to reverse or otherwise change the commanders’ decisions with respect to the Article 15s or administrative discharge process. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial as it pertains to the applicant’s request to change the SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service. The applicant received a summary court-martial and two Article 15s for misconduct. It was determined by his commander that the applicant was afforded opportunities to overcome his deficiencies. His commander concluded that the applicant failed to correct his behavior and refused to comply with Air Force standards and policies. The commander further concluded that the applicant demonstrated that he lacked the self-discipline to meet and maintain Air Force standards. Based on a review of the record, the discharge to include the SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service, was within the discretion of the discharge authority. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code to 3K. The applicant received a RE code of 2B (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable- conditions (UOTHC) discharge), based on his general discharge. On 20 Mar 14, a new DD Form 214 was issued with an honorable character of service and the applicant’s RE code was erroneously listed as 2B. Per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, the RE code should have been automatically changed to “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service), based on his character of service being changed to honorable. The RE code 2B is not compatible with an honorable character of service. AFPC/DPSOY will publish and provide the applicant with a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 to reflect the correct RE code of 2C, unless otherwise directed by the Board. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates that his RE code and narrative reason should be changed. He is pursuing his bachelor’s degree and will graduate in 2016. He would like all negative comments removed from his DD 214 to prevent any hindrances for future employment. He plans to submit a waiver to attend Officer Candidate School and a negative narrative reason would likely result in a denial. In an additional, undated rebuttal, the applicant requests update of his foreign service credit, the longevity service award, and a new honorable discharge certificate for framing purposes. 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 opinions and recommendations of AFLOA/JAJM and AFPC/DPSOR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice with respect to his Article 15 punishments and the SPD code issued in conjunction with his involuntary separation. While the applicant has been successful in getting his character of service upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable, he has presented no evidence to undermine the fact that his misconduct formed the legitimate basis for his discharge. Therefore, as the applicant has presented no evidence to indicate that the commander abused his discretionary authority in imposing punishment under Article 15 or recommending his subsequent administrative discharge based on the applicant’s misconduct, we find no basis to recommend the applicant’s records be now corrected to reflect that his SPD and RE now be changed to codes that would allow him to re-enlist. We note the Air Force OPR has determined the applicant’s eligibility for the Air Force Overseas Ribbon – Short Tour and will correct his records administratively. As for the applicant’s additional requests in response to the advisory opinions for foreign service credit and the Air Force Longevity Service Award (AFLSA), in view of the fact that these constitute new requests, the applicant should submit a new DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Records, describing the further corrections he wants made to his records, along with documentary evidence in support of said requests. As for his request to be reissued a DD Form 256, Honorable Discharge Certificate, this matter will be resolved administratively after verification of the applicant’s record by AFPC/DPSOR. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting relief beyond that rendered administratively. 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-2014-02335 in Executive Session on 22 Apr 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 18 Sep 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 24 Sep 14. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 30 Oct 14. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Nov 14 .