RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01616 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His reentry (RE) code of 3K (Reserved for use by AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate) and separation code of “JFF” (Secretarial Authority) be changed to codes that will allow him to reenlist. 2. His pay grade of E4 (senior airman) be reinstated. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In May 2009, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) changed his character of service and RE code. In support of the request, the applicant provides copies of his original DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reissued DD Form 214, character letters, and an un- notarized affidavit. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 2 Jan 02, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and was progressively promoted to the rank of E4 with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Jul 04. On 6 Mar 06, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to go. On 27 Mar 06, the applicant received an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice nonjudicial punishment, for failure to go at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. His punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the grade of E3 (airman first class) until 29 Sep 06 and a forfeiture of $100. On 19 Oct 06, the applicant’s received an Article 15 in which his suspended reduction was vacated. On 22 Sep 06, the applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. His punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to airman first class with a new date of rank of 30 Mar 06, with an effective date of 19 Oct 06. On 7 Dec 06, the applicant was notified of pending discharge action. Specifically, the commander cited a pattern of misconduct – conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline as the basis for discharge. The commander listed the applicant’s failures to go as the reason for discharge. On 12 Dec 06, the applicant submitted written statements in his own behalf and requested an honorable discharge. On 20 Dec 06, the discharge authority directed discharge without probation and rehabilitation and the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with the narrative reason for separation of “misconduct” and a separation code of “JKM” with the RE code of 2B (separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge). On 20 May 99, the applicant appeared before the AFDRB requesting an upgrade of his discharge and a change of his RE code. The AFDBR determined the applicant’s discharge was inequitable and directed that his discharge be upgraded to “Honorable” and his RE code be changed to “3K” based on the following findings: 1) the applicant was suffering from sleep deprivation and receiving inadequate therapy for his sleeping problem, and 2) the applicant’s immediate leadership violated Air Force safety standards in regards to ensuring the applicant was afforded adequate rest periods. The applicant was issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting his character of service as “Honorable,” his separation code as “JFF,” his RE code as “3K,” and his narrative reason for separation as “Secretarial Authority.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for reinstatement of the rank of senior airman. DPSOE states the commander at the time was acting within his authority when imposing punishment. The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Jan 11 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. Based on previous changes made to his record by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), the applicant requests further relief from this Board, which he opines will complete the process of correcting his record. The applicant believes additional relief is warranted through further upgrade of his reenlistment code and narrative reason as well as restoration of his pay grade of senior airman. Regarding the RE code and narrative reason, we note that the relief provided him through AFDRB channels is the same as that likely to have been granted by this Board had a determination been made he was the victim of error or injustice. Based on a review of his record and the evidence provided, we do not find that a basis exists to provide him with a further change in his RE code or narrative reason. We note that the RE code and separation code he now has can be waived by any military service that wants to enlist him. Regarding his pay grade, we note he was reduced in grade as a result of Article 15 action. Notwithstanding the findings of the AFDRB, he has not provided evidence to show that the punishment the commander imposed under Article 15 was arbitrary and capricious or exceeded the commander’s discretionary authority. As such, without a basis to question the Article 15 action, we do not find a basis to restore his previous grade. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC-2010-01616 in Executive Session on 15 February 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Nov 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11.