RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00430 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code “2P” reflected on his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was in the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) office and learned his RE code “2P” reflected Absent Without Leave (AWOL) or deserter. He was never AWOL or a deserter. He was surprised to find out that he was given an erroneous RE code. He should have a RE code of “1” instead of “2.” The Board should consider his untimely application because anyone who reviews his DD Form 214 will think negative about him which is not right; he was a good serviceman. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 22 Jul 77, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 18 Dec 77, he was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airman. The specific reason for this action was the applicant was a marginal performer whose presence created an administrative burden to the command due to minor military or disciplinary infractions. The infractions include a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 23 Oct 77 for assaulting an airman by striking her twice on her buttocks, a LOR on 16 Nov 77 for possession of marijuana, counseling on 22 Nov 77 for violation of AFR 35-10, Dress and Personal Appearance, and counseling on 30 Nov 77 for failure to go to his place of duty. On 21 Dec 77, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the recommendation for discharge. On 28 Dec 77, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge. On 6 Jan 78, he was honorably discharged from active duty with a RE code of “2P.” He served 5 months and 15 days on active duty. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant was never AWOL or a deserter. However, his RE code of “2P” is the correct RE code per the applicable guidance at the time (AFR 35-16, Volume I, 14 Nov 77). The RE Code “2P” at the time of the applicant’s discharge denoted “Separated under AFR 39-10 as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline.” The applicant’s discharge with RE code “2P” was supported by such behavior as assault of a female airman, in possession of marijuana, violation of appearance standards and failure to be at his place of duty on time. DPSOA provides a copy of AFR 35- 16, Table 6-2, dated 14 Nov 77, for the applicant to attach to his DD Form 214 for reference. The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 8 May 14, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was provided to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 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 Docket Number BC- 2014-00430 in Executive Session on 12 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 28 Jan 14, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 18 Mar 14, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 May 14.