RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02012 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reduction in rank from staff sergeant/E-5 to senior airman/E-4 be removed and her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow her to reenlist as an E-5. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her discharge was upgraded to honorable because the charges against her for Driving While Impaired (DWI) and speeding were dropped, therefore; her rank should be restored and she should be allowed to reenlist. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 3 Oct 06, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 13 Feb 12, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to heed the explicit warnings, guidance and directives given to her regarding the dangers of drinking and driving. She acknowledged receipt the same day and provided comments within three duty days to her commander. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant submitted her LOR response, taking full responsibility for her actions and indicated she understands those actions failed to set a good example. Her commander determined the LOR would remain in effect, would be filed in an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and that she would be placed on a control roster. She acknowledged receipt on 17 Feb 12. On 22 Feb 12, the applicant was notified her commander was recommending she be demoted from staff sergeant/E-5 to senior airman/E-4 for failing to fulfill Non-commissioned Officer (NCO) responsibilities. She acknowledged receipt the same day. On 27 Feb 12, after consulting counsel, she notified her commander she non-concurred with the demotion, was submitting written comments and requested a hearing. On 1 Mar 12, she was notified by her commander the demotion action would continue. She acknowledged receipt the same day. On 7 Mar 12, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), found the demotion action appropriate under AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, paragraph 6.3.4, which allows demotion of any airman who fails to fulfill Airman responsibilities as outlined in AFI 36-2618, The Enlisted Force Structure, Chapter 4, and recommended the applicant be demoted. On 16 Mar 12, the applicant was demoted to senior airman/E-4, per Special Order (SO) P-038. She acknowledged receipt the same day. On 5 Apr 15, her commander notified her he was recommending she be discharged per AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 9 Jul 04, paragraph 5.52.3. She acknowledged receipt the same day. On 10 Apr 15, she submitted a rebuttal to the discharge notification, indicating she takes full responsibility for her actions and requested her commander change the general, under honorable conditions, discharge to honorable. On 16 Apr 12, her commander recommended she be discharged for Misconduct: Commission of a Serious Offense and that she be given a general, under honorable conditions, service characterization. On 17 Apr 12, the Staff Judge Advocate found that the general, under honorable conditions, characterization of service was legally sufficient. On 26 Apr 12, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 5 years, 6 months, and 24 days of active service. On 1 May 14, According to AFHQ Form 0-2077, Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record, the AFDRB concluded her military records should be corrected to reflect honorable characterization of service. The Board concluded the applicant’s misconduct was a departure from conduct expected of all military members but did not rise to the level of warranting a general (under honorable conditions) discharge characterization; therefore, the Board concluded the overall quality of the applicant’s service was more accurately reflected by an Honorable discharge. A new DD Form 214 was issued, dated 17 Jul 14, with an RE code of 3K and a narrative reason for discharge of Secretarial Authority. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are included at Exhibits C, D and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of any legal error or injustice with the applicant’s disciplinary actions or discharge. The applicant received legal representation throughout the process and she could have presented her arguments near the time of the action. Under AFI 36-3208, discharge for a serious offense does not require a conviction; the commander simply must have credible evidence the offense occurred. The applicant took responsibility for her actions and admitted her misconduct, despite the charges being ultimately dismissed in the civilian section. The dismissal in civilian court has no bearing on the legality of the LOR, administrative demotion or discharge, as it could have been for a number of reasons. In addition, her requests for removal of the LOR for purposes of reenlistment are moot. AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File Program, controls the time line for a UIF and control roster. A control roster is only valid up to six months and a UIF is only valid for two years. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for restoration of rank. They reviewed the case and found the dismissal of civil charges has no bearing on the legality of the administrative demotion. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends deferral of a recommendation for reinstatement to the appropriate OPR as the RE code was not a factor leading to the applicant’s separation. The applicant was involuntarily discharged on 26 Apr 12 for misconduct (Serious Offense) with a general character of service. On 17 Jul 14, her character of service was changed to honorable, narrative reason for separation changed to Secretarial Authority, and RE code changed from 2C meaning involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service to 3K, meaning Secretarial Authority. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 Nov 15 for review and comment 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 was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting relief on the applicant’s request to restore her previous grade of staff sergeant (E-5) so that she can re-enlist in said grade. The applicant contends that because her discharge was upgraded to honorable by the AFDRB, that her demotion as the result of an Article 15 be removed from her records. While the AFDRB saw fit to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to honorable, in our view, this decision does not undermine the validity of the demotion action. In this respect we note the AFDRB proceedings on this point indicate that they found the discharge for commission of a serious offense was carried out appropriately based on the misconduct that caused the applicant to be demoted; however, the AFDRB determined that her overall service was more appropriately characterized as honorable. Therefore, in view of the fact the applicant has presented no evidence to undermine the basis for the demotion action, we are not convinced that relief is warranted on this point. As for the applicant’s request to correct her RE code, we note that as a result of the action of the AFDRB, her RE code was changed to 3K, which denotes Secretarial Authority and we find no basis to conclude that her new RE code is somehow incorrect or renders her the victim of an error or 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-2015-02012 in Executive Session on 4 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 23 Jul 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 17 Aug 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 15 Nov 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Nov 15.