RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00052 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His entry-level separation be changed to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Through no fault of his own, he was wrongly accused and discharged. While he was a group leader, he recorded the activities of someone in his group who became drunk and disorderly. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 22 Aug 85, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 26 Aug 85, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to obey orders about consuming alcoholic beverages, becoming drunk and disorderly, taking alcoholic beverages from the flight attendant cart and shouting derogatory comments to the flight attendant, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He refused to sign the LOR. On 27 Aug 85, his commander notified him he was recommending he be discharged for unsatisfactory entry level performance or conduct. He acknowledged receipt the same day indicating he had consulted counsel and was submitting a personal statement. On 4 Sep 85, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge case legally sufficient. On 5 Sep 85, the applicant received an entry-level separation under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Airman Separation Manual, chapter 5, paragraph 5-49d, for misconduct—other serious offenses. He was credited with 14 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Based on a review of 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. It was determined by his commander that the offense committed by the applicant was of a serious nature and had a detrimental effect on the Air Force. In addition, the commander reviewed the applicant’s training record that contained comments and recommendations from his military training instructor, the section supervisor, and the training superintendent. They stated that the applicant had been rated unsatisfactory for his first weekly grading period in the area of attitude and adaptability. It was concluded that his lack of maturity, poor self-concept, and irresolute attitude were unsuited for military service. Based on this assessment, discharge was warranted. Therefore, both the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code and the narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. 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. 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 13 Mar 15 for review and comment. The applicant submitted a letter stating he did nothing wrong. He wanted to join the Air Force his entire life and upon enlistment accepted the duties of group leader during the airline flight to basic training. The last order everyone received was that no one was to drink any alcoholic beverages. He observed a couple of individuals consuming alcoholic beverages on the flight, so he annotated it in his notebook. One of the individuals vomited on the seats and the other used abusive language when asked to return to his seat by the flight attendant. The applicant was sitting next to an Army officer who decided to inject himself in the situation and instructed him to continue writing his incident report. The individual who used the abusive language appeared to take more alcohol from the galley and blame it on other passengers. The applicant asked the Army officer to write a statement and when he exited the plane, the individual causing the trouble was arrested. A man in a suit approached him and asked to search his carry-on. He ended up placed in a jail cell and told the gentleman he had written everything down in a notebook he received before leaving on the trip. Without explanation, he was housed in the control building after reaching the base. He received an LOR that was the same as the individual who caused all of the trouble. When placed in front of the decision authority for his case, he was not given an opportunity to explain anything. The complete APPLICANT review is at Exhibit D. 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 error or injustice. The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing instruction. Airman are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of 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. Therefore, his uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. An entry- level/uncharacterized separation should not be viewed as negative and should not be confused with other types of separation. The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his discharge is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction. We, therefore, conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that his uncharacterized entry level separation be changed to an honorable discharge. 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 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-2015-00052 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jan 15. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Feb 15. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Mar 15.