RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01117

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reentry (RE) code “2C” which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge or entry level separation without characterization of service” be changed to “3K” which denotes “Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or AFBCMR when no other RE code applies.”

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

RE code “3K” is appropriate for his situation.  While at Basic Military Training (BMT) he received news a close relative had fallen ill and passed away.  This affected him greatly as she was like a second mother to him.  It was a difficult time for him and even though he spoke about his difficulties with his instructors, he was never provided any counsel or an opportunity to mourn.

He loves his country and would like a second opportunity to serve it.  He has grown and matured and would like a chance to reenlist.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 7 June 2005. 

On 26 October 2005, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend he be discharged with an Entry Level Separation (ELS) in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The reason for the discharge recommendation was the applicant failed written tests on 8 August, 10 August, 12 September, 14 September and 19 September 2005.  The applicant also failed to report to mandatory formation on 15 August 2005 for which he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).     

On 26 October 2005, the applicant acknowledged the discharge notification, waived his right to consult counsel and declined to submit statements in his own behalf.    

On 27 October 2005, the Chief of Adverse Actions determined the recommendation for discharge legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be separated with an ELS.  

On 4 November 2005, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge.  

On 18 November 2005, the applicant was discharged with an ELS, RE code “2C” and a narrative reason for separation of “Entry Level Performance or Conduct.”  He served 5 months and 12 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/DP3STM recommends denial.  Although it was a difficult time in his life, it is clear from his record he was afforded due process both in technical school with his academic failures and his discharge processing.  The RE code “2C” is the correct RE code per his uncharacterized character of service and ELS.

The applicant’s AETC Form 125A, Record of Administrative Training Action, dated 29 September 2005 reflects he lacked the aptitude and motivation to complete training or have a successful Air Force career.   

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3STM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He disputes the advisory which states he received due process.  He was depressed about his loss.  He was a young man and did not know how to deal with loss.  He was never counseled or offered any type of coping mechanism to deal with his grief.  With a little encouragement and guidance, things could have transpired differently for him.

In an additional e-mail dated 20 April 2017, he states he was not provided due process nor was he given the opportunity to see a psychiatrist or psychologist.  Not only was he not given the proper RE code but he should not have been discharged at all per Air Force military law.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal response is at Exhibit E.  

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 that 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.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application.  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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

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-2016-01117 in Executive Session on 6 July 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01117 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 March 2016, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 20 June 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 January 2017.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’ dated 15 February 2017,
			  w/atchs.  

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.