RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00243 COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment (RE) code of 2P, which denotes “Separated under AFR 39-10, as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, Basic Military Training (BMT) eliminees discharge due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions” be changed.

He be paid for his excess leave.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He never deserted or was Absent Without Leave (AWOL). He had a conflict with his commanding officer, but got along well with the other service members he worked with.

His RE code and other items on his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty are in different type style than the rest of his discharge documents.

He was never paid for his excess leave.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 10 Feb 76.

On 21 Jul 77, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending he be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39- 10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, For Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency, and Hardship, paragraph 3- 8L. The specific reasons for this action was that:

On 9 Dec 76, the applicant created a disturbance involving himself and two Turkish national employees at the base laundry.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

On 25 Dec 76, he unlawfully kicked a staff sergeant in the mid-section and subsequently refused to obey a lawful order to leave the Combined Open Mess.

On 20 May 77, he informed the Chief of Security Police that he wanted to be relieved of duty to seek help at the Mental Health Clinic. Upon his return, on 12 Jul 77, he created another disturbance involving himself, a Turkish national employee and a Turkish customs inspector at the base Traffic Management Office (TMO).

Before recommending discharge, the commander noted the applicant has been counselled numerous times by his supervisors, the Chief of Security Police, and the first sergeant. He was given a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP). In addition, the commander noted the applicant has been sent to the Mental Health Clinic on two occasions for psychiatric evaluation and on both occasions he was diagnosed as having no diagnosable psychiatric disorder. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge; consulted legal counsel; did not request retention in the Air Force, and declined to submit a statement on his own behalf.

On 9 Aug 77, the separation authority approved the discharge recommendation. On 14 Aug 77, the applicant was honorably discharged with a RE code of 2P. He was credited with one year, six months, and three days of total active service.

The applicant’s DD Form 214, block 27, Remarks, issued in conjunction with his 14 Aug 77 separation, reflects “due US
18.0 days of excess leave.”
In accordance with AFR 35-16, USAF Reenlistment and Retention Program, Volume I, Table 6-2, Item 14, dated 14 Nov 77, in effect when the applicant separated in 1977, RE code “2P” denoted “Separated under AFR 39-10 as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, BMT eliminees discharge due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions.”

The AFI in use today is AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the United States Air Force, dated 9 May 2011. In this AFI, RE code 2P now denotes “AWOL; deserter or dropped from rolls.”

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code indicating RE code 2P is correct per the applicable

guidance in Aug 77, as he was involuntary separated as a marginal performer.

The applicant believes his RE code 2P means he was AWOL; it does under today’s guidance. The RE code “2P” did not have the meaning of AWOL at the time the applicant was discharged. RE code 2P did not change to Deserter/AWOL until 18 Jul 91.

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

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be paid for his excess leave indicating excess leave is not accrued leave and cannot be paid to the applicant.

AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, paragraph 4.2.2 states “excess leave is leave members normally use for personal or family emergency situations when members cannot request advance leave. Excess leave is a no-pay status; therefore, authority for pay and allowances and leave accrual stops on member’s first day of excess leave.” Paragraph 4.1.2.8 states “the financial service office stops or collects, if applicable, all pay and allowances paid after a member’s leave status changes from advance to excess leave. There is an additional collection for non-accruals of one half- day for every six days of excess leave.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SSM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Oct 16, 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.
1.	

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-2016-00243 in Executive Session on 13 Jun 17, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 16, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 10 May 16, w/atch. Exhibit D.	Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 25 Jul 16.
Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Oct 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 that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.