RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04545 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His narrative reason for separation and separation code of “JPD” which denotes “Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure” be changed. 2. His reentry (RE) code of “2C” which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service” be changed to allow him to reenlist in the Armed Forces. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The applicant through counsel submits a six page legal brief with attachments with the following major contentions: 1. His discharge was inequitable and legally insufficient when compared to other discharges for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) failure around the Air Force. 2. He did not fail the ADAPT program because he was unwilling or refused treatment. Instead, like most alcohol abusers, he suffered a minor relapse and was deemed “unable” to complete treatment. 3. He was treated differently and more harshly than other members of the Air Force under the same or similar circumstances. 4. His commander and the ADAPT Program Manager did not provide adequate notice and denied him any meaningful opportunity to respond by not providing evidence and/or asserting as fact information which was not supported by evidence. 5. The discharge was unsubstantiated and the available evidence demonstrates by more than a preponderance that he should have been rehabilitated and retained. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a six-page legal brief, Letter of Reprimand (LOR), and letters of support. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 Nov 05, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On or about 24 Dec 06, the applicant unlawfully assaulted airman first class --------- in the face with his hand causing his nose to bleed in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and was drunk and disorderly, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. For this misconduct, he received an Article 15, UCMJ, reduction to the grade of airman, forfeiture of $250.00 pay, restriction to the base for 30 days and 15 days extra duty. In addition, he was enrolled in the ADAPT program, which he successfully completed. On 2 Aug 08, the applicant became intoxicated and then broke into private property. For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). On 8 Aug 08, the applicant was diagnosed as an alcohol abuser and enrolled into the ADAPT program for a second time in his Air Force career. On 7 Nov 08, the applicant failed the ADAPT program because of his inability to complete the treatment program, which included his inability to abstain from consuming alcohol and lack of integrity to come forward and ask for help. The applicant was notified of his commanders intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman for failure in ADAPT program due to inability. The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support a discharge and recommended that he receive an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 6 Mar 09, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as honorable in the grade of senior airman. He served 3 years, 3 months and 29 days of total active service. On 3 Aug 09, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). On 28 Sep 10, the AFDRB determined that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process (see AFDRB Hearing Record at Exhibit B). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his RE code. DPSOA states that the applicant’s RE code 2C is required IAW AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, based on his involuntary discharge with honorable character of service. The applicant does not provide proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his narrative reason for separation and separation code. DPSOR states that based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant does not provide proof of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 Feb 13, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded the applicant’s narrative reason for separation, separation code and reentry code are in error or unjust. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale, as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the narrative reason for separation or the assigned RE code was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to other members similarly situated. In view of the above and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04545 in Executive Session on 2 Jul 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04545 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 11 Feb 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Nov 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 13.