RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03287 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 4H (Serving suspended punishment to Article 15) be removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He could have had the Article 15 punishment removed from his record after one year, if he was still on active duty. He does not wish to reenter the military but needs the RE code removed so he can pursue other career opportunities. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 Jun 02. On 1 Feb 10, the applicant received an Article 15 for sleeping on post, in violation of Article 113 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). As a result, his punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the grade of senior airman (E-4) for six months, forfeiture of $1,291.00 pay, and a reprimand. On 1 Feb 10, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 15 punishment and, on 8 Feb 10, elected not to appeal the punishment or submit statements on his behalf. On 10 Feb 10, the Article 15 was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient. On 30 Jun 10, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a RE code of 4H, and was credited with 8 years and 27 days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice. The applicant fails to make a compelling argument that the Board should overturn the commander’s original decision. The commander’s decision is firmly based on the evidence of the case and the punishment was well within the limits of the commander’s authority and discretion. The applicant does not contend an error or injustice in his receipt of nonjudicial punishment, but rather feels the 4H RE code on his DD Form 214 should be removed. Nevertheless, the legal review process showed the commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making his decision. The applicant’s leadership was well aware of the applicant’s record before and after the misconduct and made sure to take this into account before issuing the nonjudicial punishment. A complete copy of the JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not provided any proof of an error or injustice related to his RE code. The applicant contends his Article 15 could have been removed from his record after one year if he was still on active duty. However, the Article 15 was processed in accordance with the current guidance and there is no process for an active duty member to have a valid Article 15 removed from their record after a year or any other passage of a period of time. The applicant was discharged under the FY10 Phase II Force Shaping Rollback Program. A complete copy of the DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Nov 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-03287 in Executive Session on 8 Apr 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 6 Sep 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 24 Oct 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Nov 13. 1 2