RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02146 

  						COUNSEL: NONE
 
						HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be issued a new DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, with the following blocks amended: 

a.	Block 4a, GRADE, RATE OR RANK, to read SRA.

b.	Block 4b, PAY GRADE, to read E4.

c.	Block 8a, LAST DUTY ASSIGNMENT AND MAJOR COMMAND, to read 3 OSS.

d.	Block 8b, STATION WHERE SEPARATED, to read ELMENDORF AFB AK.

e. Block 11, PRIMARY SPECIALTY, to read Maintenance Data Systems Analysis Journeyman, 1 Year and 10 Months.

f. Block 12b, RECORD OF SERVICE, to read 1999 AUG 30.

g. Block 12c, NET ACTIVE SERVICE THIS PERIOD, to read 4 Years 1 Month 26 Days

h. Block 12e, TOTAL PRIOR INACTIVE SERVICE, to read 2 Months 26 Days.
i. Block 12h, EFFECTIVE DATE OF PAY GRADE to read 1995 JUL 05.

j. Block 24, CHARACTER OF SERVICE, to read HONORABLE.

k. Block 25, SEPARATION AUTHORITY, to read AFR 39-10.

l. Block 26, SEPARATION CODE, to read 313.

m. Block 27, REENTRY CODE, to read IR.

n. Block 28, NARRATIVE REASON FOR SEPATION, to read REENLISTMENT.

o. Block 29, DATES OF TIME LOST DURING THIS PERIOD, to read NOT APPLICABLE.

p. Correct any other inadequacies that he may have missed.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His current DD Form 214 reflects he received a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) after serving on active duty for 10 years, 10 months, and 13 days.  He believes that if all of his service time was bad, he would not have been able to reenlist after completing his initial enlistment.  He never received a DD Form 214 for his initial enlistment, which would reflect his honorable service from 5 Jul 95 to 30 Aug 99.  He knows that he did not show much dignity while serving in the Air Force.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 5 Jul 95.

According to Special Court-Martial Order No. 1, dated 24 Jan 03, the applicant was tried for:

	Specification 1: On or about 27 Feb 02 and 16 May 02, he intended to defraud and procure lawful currency, wrongfully and unlawfully uttered five (5) checks to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service in a total amount of $1,500.00 knowing he did not or would not have sufficient funds.  He pled not guilty, but guilty to a lesser offense under Article 134, for making and uttering worthless checks by dishonorably failing to maintain sufficient funds.  Finding:  Not guilty, but guilty of the lesser offense.

	Specification 2:  On or about 2 Mar 02 and 13 May 02, he intended to defraud and procure lawful currency, wrongfully and unlawfully uttered fifteen (15) checks to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service in a total amount of $4,500.00 knowing he did not or would not have sufficient funds.  He pled not guilty, but guilty to a lesser offense under Article 134, for making and uttering worthless checks by dishonorably failing to maintain sufficient funds.  Finding:  Not guilty, but guilty of the lesser offense.

	Specification 3:  On or about 31 Dec 01 and 7 Jan 02, he intended to defraud and procure lawful currency, wrongfully and unlawfully uttered one (1) check to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service in a total amount of $875.45 knowing he did not or would not have sufficient funds.  He pled not guilty, but guilty to a lesser offense under Article 134, for making and uttering worthless checks by dishonorably failing to maintain sufficient funds.  Finding:  Not guilty, but guilty of the lesser offense.

	Specification 4:  On or about 29 Dec 99, he intended to defraud and procure lawful currency, wrongfully and unlawfully uttered five (5) checks to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service in a total amount of $300.00 knowing he did not or would not have sufficient funds.  He pled not guilty, but guilty to a lesser offense under Article 134, for making and uttering worthless checks by dishonorably failing to maintain sufficient funds.  Finding:  Not guilty, but guilty of the lesser offense.

The applicant was sentenced to be discharged with a BCD, confined for 75 days and reduced to the grade Airman First Class (A1C).  On 4 Dec 02, the sentence was adjudged by a military judge.    

On 6 Jul 06, the applicant received a BCD, with credit for 10 years, 10 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 (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D and E.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/JA recommends denying the requested relief because the applicant was not entitled to a separate DD Form 214 at the time of his reenlistment.  In this regard, the applicant does not characterize the DD Form 214 he received in 2006 as erroneous or unjust.  The applicant also does not claim any defect in his court-martial sentence.  Instead, his sole claim is that he should have received a separate DD Form 214, at the time of his 30 Aug 99 reenlistment, to show honorable service for the period of his initial enlistment.  The fact that the applicant did not receive a separate DD Form 214 for his initial enlistment was not an error.  The issuance of DD Forms 214 is governed by AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, dated 22 Nov 05, which states that if a member is being separated from one status to continue in another because of immediate reenlistment, then no DD Form 214 should be issued. 
 
In the absence of an error, the applicant must demonstrate injustice in order for the Board to grant relief.  The courts have for many years held that an “injustice” within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 1552 means more than an action that seems unfair to an applicant or that might cause collateral consequences.  It has been defined as an action or treatment by military authorities that “shocks the sense of justice, but is not technically illegal.”  In this case, the applicant has not articulated any injustice in the application or evidence provided.  

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

AFPC Enlisted Promotions provides an informational advisory opinion, stating that based on the information provided, the applicant’s 6 Jul 06 DD Form 214 reflects his rank correctly as A1C.

A complete copy of the AFPC Enlisted Promotions evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2STM-214 recommends denying the applicant’s request to have a new DD Form 214 created.  The governing instructions states that if an individual is going “from one status to continue in another” as in “immediate reenlistment or enlistment” then Column “C” of the instructions titled “then issues a DD Form 214” shows the word “No.”  However, they recommend issuing a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, to account for his “Honorable” service period.  Thus, a correction to his DD Form 214 could be accomplished in the form of a DD Form 215 to reflect addition of the statement “Continuous Honorable Active Military Service from 5 July 1995 to 30 August 1999.” 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-214 evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 Jul 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

1. After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely.  Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice that require resolution on the merits.  Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner.

2.  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 issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed 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-2016-02146 in Executive Session on 15 Feb 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 May 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 12 Dec 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC Enlisted Promotions, 
  dated 6 Jan 17.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-214, dated 22 Jun 17
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jul 17.

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.