RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05000

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

His reentry (RE) code and separation program designator (SPD) code be changed on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, because he is trying to reenlist.

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

He was an outstanding Airmen during his active duty service.  He separated during an early out program, and he believes he should have a “higher” RE code and SPD code.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 3 Sep 02.

On 15 Nov 04, the applicant’s commander punished him through non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ.  The reason for taking this action was the applicant violated Article 92 of the UCMJ when, on 4 Oct 04, he failed to refrain from drinking alcohol while under the age of 21.  For this, he was reduced to the grade of Airman, suspended through 14 May 05.  

On 15 Apr 05, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for discharge of “Miscellaneous/General Reasons,” with a separation code of “KND,” an RE code of 4H [Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)],” and was credited with 2 years, 7 months, and 13 days of active service.   

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 attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant states his notification memorandum from his commander shows he would be receiving a RE code 3K--(Reserved for use by HQ AFMPC or the AFBCMR when no other RE code applies or is appropriate).  The applicant received an Article 15 and was serving on a suspended punishment for underage drinking that did not expire until 14 May 2005.  Therefore, he was not in good standing when he separated, and was ineligible to reenlist at that time. 

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

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his SPD code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant contends his codes should be “higher” in order to allow him to reenlist in the Air Force Reserve.  While the applicant’s separation application is missing from the record, based upon the presumption of regularity, the applicant would have had to request separation prior to his established date of separation (DOS), and the separation authority would have had to approve the request and direct an honorable discharge.  The SPD code and corresponding narrative reason for separation are correct in accordance with a voluntary separation requested by a member in his situation.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice in the separation process.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 3 May 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

THE BOARD DETERMINES:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-05000 in Executive Session on 15 Nov 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 17 Mar 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 20 Apr 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 May 16.

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 the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.