RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03913

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reentry (RE) Code “2B” which denotes “Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge” be changed to allow reenlistment in the Armed Forces.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He made a mistake that cost him his military career.  It was one event in two years.  He has matured and is a husband and soon to be father.  He would like the opportunity to return to military service and prove himself.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 January 2013, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

According to his AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), for the reporting period ending 21 September 2014, he received a referral EPR with an overall rating of “3.”  The reasons for the referral report include violations of Articles 92 and 108, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to obey an order, regulation and maintaining government quarters.  It was noted the applicant received two Letters of Counseling (LOC) and one Letter of Reprimand (LOR).  On 2 October 2014, the applicant acknowledged the referral EPR.

On 9 December 2014, the applicant was discharged with a general, under honorable conditions, discharge, a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (Minor Infractions)” and RE code “2B.”  He served 1 year, 10 months and 18 days of active duty service.  

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/DP3ST recommends denial.  The discharge package is not in the applicant’s personnel record.  However, his EPR for the period of 22 January 2013 through 21 September 2014 shows he had two LOCs and one LOR for failing to obey an order, failing to obey a regulation and failing to maintain government quarters.  The applicant states he had only one event; however, he had three separate disciplinary issues based on his EPR since only one LOC or LOR can be issued for the same incident or infraction.  He received a RE code of “2B” based on his general discharge.

If the applicant’s character of service is upgraded to honorable now or at a later point, his RE code would also need to be changed to “2C” which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” as the current RE code of “2B” is only compatible with a general or worse character of service.  
  
A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST 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 31 May 2016 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.   We note the applicant’s discharge package is not available for our review.  Therefore, the facts surrounding his separation and RE code could not be verified.  However, based on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs, absent evidence to the contrary, we must assume the applicant’s discharge, to include his RE code were proper and in compliance with the directive under which it was effected.  The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service and RE code was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not sustained his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.  

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-2015-03913 in Executive Session on 6 October 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair	
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 September 2015.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 3 May 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 May 2016.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete