RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-03035

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO	

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment code (RE) of “2P” which denotes “Marginal performer assigned to organizational unit” be changed to reflect the reason for her early separation.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her issued RE code does not currently reflect her military service accurately.  She did not go absent without leave (AWOL) or desert her squadron.  Her mother was diagnosed with diabetes and as an only child; she requested to separate in order to be with her mother.  The current reenlistment code erroneously gives a picture of an unreliable person.  In addition, she contracted for entry into the nursing field.  However, the Air Force failed to honor their part of her enlistment contract and placed her into dental services.  Her current RE code prevents her from being able to enter another branch of service.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 1 Dec 78.

On 21 Nov 79, the applicant received a Letter of Notification from her commander.  This notification informed the applicant of the commander’s intent to initiate action to discharged her from the Air Force under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The applicant was a marginal performer and  unable to adjust to the demands of military life or meet standards of duty performance.  The incidents below are provided:

	a.  11 Jun 79, the applicant was issued Kirkland, AFB (KAFB) Form 87, Record of Individual Counseling and the applicant stated she wanted to be separated from the Air Force.  The applicant was counseled that she would not be separated from the Air Force and that she would continue to be utilized in the Dental Clinic.
	
	b.  12 Jun 79, issued a Memo for Record, due to exhibiting an “I don’t care” attitude when shown a new procedure or technique.
	
	c.  18 Jun 79,she was informally counseled for disobeying a direct order to return to work.

	d.  24 Jul 79, issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to report to the Base Education Center on 19 Jul 79, in violation of Article 92, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The LOR was placed in an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and she was notified of her placement on the Control Roster.

	e.  26 Jul 79, a KAFB Form 393, Certificate of Psychiatric Evaluation, was rendered diagnosing her with a narcissistic personality with passive-dependent and passive-aggressive features and situational adjustment reaction, becoming chronic.  The Psychiatric Social Worker recommended her for separation.

	f.  9 Aug 79, she was issued a KAFB Form 87, for failure to uphold dormitory standards.

	g.  11 Oct 79, a request for medical record evaluation was initiated due to excessive sickness and time off; possible malingering.

	h.  22 Oct 79, a KAFB Form 393, was rendered diagnosing her with an inadequate personality.  The Psychiatric Social Worker recommended her for separation.

On 21 Nov 79, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge action, waived her right to military legal counsel and did not submit matters on her own behalf.

On 30 Nov 79, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge.

On 5 Dec 79, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Marginal Performer Assigned to Organization Unit”, and issued a reenlistment (RE) code of “2P.”  She was credited with one year and five days of active service.

On 4 May 87, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, requesting a “1” series RE code in order to join the Army Reserve or National Guard.

On 16 Jun 87, the applicant notified SAF/MIPC that she was discharged for unknown reasons and did not know her RE code until applying for the Army National Guard.

On 10 Jul 87, the Secretary of the Air Force denied the request for change of the applicant’s RE Code.  The board concluded the applicant presented an unacceptable risk for further military service.  On 23 Jul 87, the applicant was notified of the decision and her right to appeal to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.

In accordance with Air Force Instruction, 36-2603, Air Force Board of Correction of Military Records, dated 18 Aug 17, the applicant has the burden of providing sufficient evidence of material error or injustice.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the application.  The applicant’s RE code “2P” is the correct RE code per the applicable guidance at the time of her separation in December 79.  Specifically, the RE code “2P” did not have the meaning of AWOL or deserter at that time.  In the applicant’s case, it was based on her being involuntary separated for marginal performance.  However, the current meaning of RE Code 2P does mean AWOL.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 29 Mar 17 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  As noted by AFPC/DP2SSM, RE code “2P” did not have the meaning of AWOL or deserter at that time she was discharged.  The Board also notes 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, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  Moreover, the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-03035 in Executive Session on 29 Aug 18:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 28 Jul 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 13 Jan 17.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, AFBCMR to applicant, dated 6 Mar 17.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9 for Docket Number BC-2016-03035.