RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00987 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her separation program designator (SPD) of JKA (discreditable incidents – civilian or military) and Reentry (RE) Code of 2B (discharged under general or other-than-honorable conditions) be changed so that she can be eligible for enlistment into the Air National Guard (ANG). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was naïve when she joined the military at the age of 17 and went through a very stressful time during technical training school. She was very insecure and tried to fit in at her first duty station causing her to make bad choices. She became depressed because she never really dealt with what occurred in technical training school. She drank to medicate herself when she should have gone through a program for assistance. Also, she should have fought to stay in the Air Force and ask for help with her problems. She regrets the decisions she made every day of her life; however, she was a young lost girl at the time. She takes full responsibility for her actions and since leaving the military she has become a devoted mother, has started a career, obtained a Master of Business Administration (MBA) and is an adjunct professor. She is a great leader and good citizen. She has never had any trouble with the law, except speeding tickets. She does not want the mistakes she made as a 19-20 year old child haunt her or to impact her future decisions in life. She has wanted to reenter the military but never thought it was possible. She is at a very different place in her life now and would like another chance. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate she enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 September 1996. On 12 January 1998, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully possessing, with the intent to deceive, an altered identification card, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. Her commander imposed punishment consisting of suspended forfeitures of $200 pay per month for two months until 11 July 1998 and restriction to base for 30 days. On 23 January 1998, the applicant was notified of her non-recommendation for promotion to airman first class (E-3) for six months due to her demonstrated lack of good conduct. On 5 February 1998, the applicant received (NJP) under Article 15 of the UCMJ for willfully failing to refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21 and with the intent to deceive make a false official statement, in violation of Articles 92 and 134, UCMJ, respectively. Her commander imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of Airman Basic (E-1), suspended forfeitures of $250 pay per month for two months until 4 August 1998 and 30 days extra duty. On 9 February 1998, an AF Form 1137, Unfavorable Information File Summary, was initiated to include her NJP actions. On 18 March 1998, an AF Form 366, Record of Proceedings of Vacation of Suspended Non-judicial Punishment, was initiated to vacate the applicant’s suspended portion of her NJP actions due to her failure to go, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. On 30 April 1998, the applicant pled guilty and was found guilty in a Municipal Court of Alamogordo, New Mexico of one charge of a minor allowing self to be served. Her sentenced adjudged was a fine of $11.00. On 9 June 1998, the applicant was issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for consuming alcoholic beverages under the age of 21 despite the previous administrative action taken against her and being tried and found guilty in a civil court for the offense. The LOR was placed in her existing UIF. On 16 June 1998, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct, and discreditable involvement with military and civil authorities. On 19 June 1998, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, consulted with legal counsel and waived her right to submit a statement on her behalf. On 26 June 1998, the action was found to be legally sufficient. On 29 June 1998, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Pattern of Misconduct,” and was issued an RE Code of 2B and SPD code of JKA. She was credited with one year, nine months, and 5 days of active service. On 17 January 2002, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge to honorable. Specifically, her discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority, as well as, she was provided full administrative due process. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. Based on a review of the applicant’s 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. There was no evidence found of an error or an injustice in the discharge processing. In this respect, the applicant’s commander determined that she had been given several opportunities to correct her behavior. He concluded she simply could not demonstrate she had the ability or willingness to conform her behavior to that expected of an airman, and therefore discharge was the appropriate course of action. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 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.” The discharge authority correctly concluded that all of the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s misconduct outweighed any positive aspects of her brief military service. As such, the applicant’s narrative reason for separation, SPD code, and character of service are correctly indicated on her DD Form 214. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her RE code. The applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice and the RE code of 2B in which she received was required based on her involuntary discharge with a general character of service. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11 September 2015 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 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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their 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. 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00987 in Executive Session on 15 October 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00987 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 27 February 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 April 2015. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 August 2015. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 September 2015.