RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02479 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized service be changed to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was in Air Force Officer Training School (AFOTS) from 2 March 2001 through 23 May 2001. He currently works for the Federal Government and his service computation date is being comprised due to his discharge status. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 1 February 1991. On 31 January 1995, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve in the grade of senior airman under the provisions of AFI 36- 3208 (Completion of Required Active Duty). He served four years of active service. The applicant entered active duty and Officer Training School (OTS) on 2 March 2001. He completed OTS on 23 May 2001 and received an uncharacterized entry level separation under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Commission or Warrant in Same Branch of Service) as indicated by the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214. He served 2 months and 22 days on active duty. The applicant was commissioned as an officer in the United States Air Force from 24 May 2001 until 30 September 2011 until he was discharged in the grade of captain under the provisions of AFI 36-3207 (Non-selection, permanent promotion). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. DPSOR states the applicant’s completion of two months on active duty in OTS required discharge with an entry level separation. Per AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.19.l - “Airmen are in entry level status during the first 180 days of continuous active military service or in the first 180 days of continuous active military service after a break of more than 92 days of active service”. The record shows that there was an apparent 6 year break in service from 1995 when the applicant separated until 2001 when the applicant entered OTS. In addition, once the applicant began his training in 2001, the length of OTS was less than 180 days, therefore, upon completion of OTS, entry level separation was warranted in this case. Furthermore, Table 1.1 of AFI 36-3208 indicates that when an individual receives an appointment as a commissioned or warrant officer and the airman is in an entry level status, the type of separation authorized is an entry level separation. Therefore, the type of separation, the SPD code and the narrative reason for separation as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214 are correct. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records - the discharge to include the type of separation, the SPD code, the narrative reason for separation and character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. They found no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the applicant’s discharge. A complete copy of the AFPC/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 10 October 2014 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 is 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 find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence 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. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2014-02479 in Executive Session on 2 April 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 June 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 July 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 October 2014.