RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00226 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable and her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code changed to allow her to reapply to join the Air Force as an officer. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was administratively discharged without being referred to a mental health provider for the issues she was going through with her family. She was told she could reenlist at a later date. Now that she has matured and earned a college degree, she would like to continue serving in the Air Force. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 Sep 2000, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force. On 12 Nov 02, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for misconduct--minor disciplinary infractions. The reasons for the action were: the applicant failed to refrain from using a government telephone for personal long distance calls and failed to refrain from allowing another individual to use her military identification card to obtain services from a government dining facility. For both actions, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment. Further, she failed to obey a lawful order by leaving work early and made a false official statement about the incident. She also failed to report to duty at her designated location and time. For these actions, she received two letters of reprimand and a record of individual counseling. On 15 Nov 02, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification. She consulted with counsel and submitted statements to her commander for consideration. On 13 Nov 02, the discharge action was found legally sufficient. On 25 Nov 02, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for misconduct and was credited with 2 years, 2 months, and 20 days of active service. On 12 Jul 07, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) to have her discharge upgraded; however, the AFDRB denied her appeal. The board found that “neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge.” In response to a request for post-service information, the applicant provided a copy of an FBI arrest record (Exhibit G). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant was provided the opportunity to correct her conduct and behavior without success. Her commander determined the negative aspects of her performance outweighed the positive aspects of her service. Based on the documentation provided, the discharge, to include the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation and character of service, was appropriately administered. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of her discharge. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial with respect to the applicant’s RE code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s RE code of 2B was required due to the fact that her service was characterized as general (under honorable conditions). Even if the applicant's discharge is ever upgraded from general to honorable, 2C would be the required RE code, which is not an immediately eligible to enlist RE code, but would require a waiver to enter the military service. A complete copy of the AFPC/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 28 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge, to include the reenlistment eligibility (RE) code, was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we find the evidence presented insufficient to recommend relief on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 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 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-2014-00226 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Dec 13. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 14 Feb 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 Feb 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14, w/atchs. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, undated. Exhibit G. FBI arrest record, dated 18 Ju1 14