RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03991 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be reinstated into the Air Force and receive full back pay from his date of separation. 2. In the alternative, his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the following: Block 25, Separation Authority, be changed to honorable. Block 26, Separation Code, be changed to MBK (Completion of Active Duty). Block 27, Reentry Code, be changed to 1. Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, be changed to Completion of Active Duty. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The applicant contends his commander did not fairly assess his entire enlistment when determining his characterization of service. A review of his enlisted performance reports show he maintained a superior level of performance throughout his entire service record, which began in September 2005. His record demonstrates he clearly exceeded in areas such as primary and additional duties, training requirements and standards, conduct, character and military bearing. He believes there are numerous; justifiable reasons his discharge should be reviewed. He received good marks on conduct, received several awards and decorations while serving, he has combat experience and his ability to serve was impaired by various personal issues as well as psychiatric problems. The evidence clearly indicates that applicant discharge was unjust and erroneous. The administrative process to determine eligibility for reenlistment or characterization of discharge is an assessment of an individual’s enlistment of a sufficient period of time to make an affirmative determination that the person served honorably. He was not afforded an unbiased review of his total honorable service. On 23 May 2011, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for misconduct. The LOR stated he brought a bottle of alcohol into the munitions storage area with the intent of drinking while on duty. However, as a result of this incident, he was referred back to ADAPT who subsequently diagnosed him again as alcohol dependent and referred him to ADAPT Tier 1 treatment. In June 2011, the ADAPT Program Manager determined the applicant failed treatment by stating his failure to abstain from alcohol while in the program and his dishonesty with staff had compromised his success in the ADAPT program. He was separated on 21 July 2011, for misconduct – minor disciplinary infractions. This discharge, to include his character of service, is not consistent with his overall service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 13 September 2005. On 22 June 2011, he was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions and failure in Alcohol Abuse Treatment. Specifically, he failed the ADAPT treatment program; he received an LOR for bringing a bottle of alcohol to work with the intention of drinking, and he received an Article 15 for operating a passenger vehicle while drunk. The applicant acknowledged his commanders intent, his right to be represented by counsel and to submit statements on his behalf. After consulting counsel, he submitted a statement for his commander’s consideration. On 29 June 2011, the staff judge advocate found the discharge legally sufficient. The commander directed the applicant be separated for minor disciplinary infractions with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. The applicant’s record shows he received two Letters of Reprimand and one Article 15, UCMJ. The applicant also failed the ADAPT program during his enlistment. Under AFI 36-3208, Airmen are subject to discharge if they are in a program of treatment for alcohol abuse and fail to successfully complete the program due to inability, refusal to participate in the program, or unwillingness to cooperate. The applicant’s commander determined the applicants continued presence in the unit was prejudicial to good order and discipline and recommended he be discharged. The record also reflected the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for his behavior and afforded an opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. Based on the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records the discharge to include his characterization of service and separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instructions and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not proved evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant was involuntarily discharged for misconduct on 21 July 2011, with an under honorable conditions discharge after completing 5 years, 10 months and 9 days of service. He received an RE code of 2B – Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions discharge, based on his general discharge. The applicant’s RE code is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, based on his involuntary discharge with general (under honorable conditions) character of service. He does not provide any proof of an error or injustice with regard to his RE code. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 January 2014, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has received no 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during the discharge process. 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’s contentions are duly noted; however, no evidence has been provided which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, or unduly harsh. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 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-2013-03991 in Executive Session on 3 June 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 28 Oct 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 5 Dec 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14. 1 2