RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02029 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to change the reentry (RE) code of 4E to a code that allows reentry into the military.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received one Article 15 [and was demoted] and did not have enough time to [get promoted prior to separation]. He would like a second chance, so he can earn a commission like his father.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 17 Apr 07, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On or between 2 Apr 09 and 17 Apr 09, the applicant failed to properly input requested leave into leaveweb.

On 20 Apr 09, the applicant failed to go and be present at his duty location

On 27 May 09, the applicant was served with an Article 15 (non- judicial punishment (NJP)) for failure to go.

On 15 Jun 09, the applicant was demoted from A1C (E-3) to Amn (E-2) with a new date of rank of 4 Jun 09. The applicant was restricted to base for 30 days with an additional 15 days suspended until 3 Dec 09.

On 30 Jun 10, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with and an RE code of 4E, and was credited with 3 years, 2 months, and 14 days of service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends that the requested relief be denied as lacking merit and untimely. On 27 May 09, the applicant was offered NJP for a failure to go to his appointed place of duty (AWOL) and being derelict in the performance of his duties for failing to input his leave in the Air Force’s automated leave tracking system. While the applicant’s command scheduled an appointment with the local Area Defense Counsel (ADC) immediately following service of the NJP, he elected not to consult with an attorney. The applicant also elected to accept the NJP and waive his right to demand trial by court-martial for the listed offenses. The applicant submitted written matters for his commander to consider before he decided on final disposition of the case. On 4 Jun 09, The applicant’s commander found him guilty of the offenses and imposed NJP punishment by reducing Applicant from E-3 to E-2, restricting him to base for
30 days, and giving him a formal reprimand. On 5 June 09, the applicant elected not to appeal the findings or punishment imposed. Legal reviews were performed and no error or injustice was found.

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DP3ST recommends to deny changing the applicant’s RE code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant had an Article 15 and claims he was not given enough time to make rank once he was demoted. However, there is not a requirement to ensure members who are demoted are given enough time to make rank. On 30 Sep 15, AFLOA/JAJM validated the applicant’s Article 15 was legally sufficient and should not be removed from his record. The applicant then was identified by the FY10 Rollback Program by criteria used for all Air Force personnel to be force shaped and to be discharged with an “Honorable” service characterization and a reenlistment code (4E) which does not allow reenlistment. The applicant’s RE code of 4E is appropriate and the applicant has not provided any evidence of an error or injustice.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 Oct 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its 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.

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-2015-02029 in Executive Session on 9 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02029 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 30 Sep 15. Exhibit D.	Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 29 Oct 15 Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 15.