RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02332 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for discharge (conscientious objector (CO)), with the corresponding Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KCM and his reentry (RE) code of 2N (conscientious objector whose religious convictions preclude unrestricted assignment) be changed. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He requested to be transferred to a non-combatant; however, somehow his package was lost and he did not receive notification of this status until Apr 09. He resubmitted a whole new package in Jul 09. He made it very clear that he had no desire to separate and wanted to finish a 20 year career. He was advised that more than likely he would have to separate. He tried to get his package pulled; however, he was unsuccessful. In accordance with the Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1300.06, Conscientious Objector, he should have had an opportunity to submit a rebuttal; however, he was never afforded this opportunity. Throughout the whole process, he has felt lied to and deceived, and believes his discharge should be reflected as honorable under normal conditions. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 8 Mar 10 separation; a letter of character reference, and an extract from DODI 1300.6. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, stating, in part, based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The applicant provides no facts warranting a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant states that his request for CO status took longer than it should have. Although, the applicant makes a valid point that his request for discharge as a CO did take longer than it should have, he was the beneficiary of temporary CO status since May 08. The applicant had not performed the normal duties of a Security Forces Airman and avoided hazardous duty in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the applicant applied for a CO discharge with full knowledge of the effect that filing for a CO discharge would have on his military career. He was briefed, and signed a counseling statement, that as a CO, he may not be eligible for voluntary enlistment, reenlistment, or active service in the Armed Forces by reasons of a noncombatant CO classification. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA notes that the RE code of 2N is correct; however, if the applicant’s request to change his narrative reason for separation is approved, the 2N RE code would no longer apply. The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicates that some of the “facts” in the evaluation were not clear. Once he realized that his initial request had been lost, he had to reinitiate the whole process, to include a report from his physicist [sic], chaplain, and letters of support, which was a painful process the first time around. He was never informed about the process, never given due process, which was confirmed by the Area Defense Counsel (ADC). He is asking to correct his narrative reason for separation to reflect that he served his full enlistment and is not requesting reenlistment into military service. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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. The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing instruction and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation or the reason for his separation from the Air Force were inappropriate, in error, or unjust. In respect to the applicant’s RE code, we note in his response to the evaluation, he is no longer interested in a change to his RE code. However, at the time of his separation, the applicant’s RE code was predicated upon the quality of his service and the circumstances of his separation. The RE code of 2N accurately reflects that he was honorably separated as a conscientious objector. Therefore, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, and given the circumstances surrounding his separation, we believe the RE code issued was in accordance with the governing instructions. 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 issue(s) 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-2010-02332 in Executive Session on 26 January 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 8 Nov 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 9 Nov 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Nov 10. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Nov 10, w/atchs.