RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02302 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be changed from uncharacterized to Honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 28 Apr 98, while in medical hold status awaiting an entry level separation for having a seizure, he got angry and made a racial comment directed towards a fellow airman. Due to his medical condition, he was told not to follow normal formation procedures however; a fellow airman was not aware and started badgering him. Though he tried to explain what happened, he was told a witness provided the whole story. He knew something had changed with his discharge after receiving the paperwork but did not really understand the coding and verbiage. He contacted his parents who contacted their Congressman and he was released to go home. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 Mar 98, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 6 Apr 98, he was admitted to Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) after having a seizure. On 7 Apr 98, he was placed on medical hold by WHMC and transferred pending further medical evaluation. On 28 Apr 98, his section supervisor annotated on his training record that he would have disciplinary action taken against him for an incident involving a fellow airman. He acknowledged that same day. On 29 Apr 98, his section supervisor annotated the investigation had revealed the applicant made a racial comment towards another airman and that Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action would be administered. He acknowledged the same day. On 7 May 98, he received an Article 15, UCMJ based for being derelict in the performance of his duties by willfully calling a fellow airman basic a “nigger,” or words to that effect, on or about 28 Apr 98. The applicant acknowledged receipt initialing he was waiving his right to court-martial and not submitting any written statement. He was sentenced to $199.00 pay and his commander annotated the information would be filed in an Unfavorable Information File (UIF). On 8 May 98, the Judge Advocate found the record of NJP legally sufficient. On 13 May 98, the applicant received notification his squadron commander was recommending his discharge due to commission of a serious offense under provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section H, Misconduct, Paragraph 5.52, for Commission of a serious offense, specifically under Paragraph 5.52.3. He acknowledged receipt the same day waiving his option to consult counsel and his right to submit statements. On 14 May 98, the separation authority approved the applicant’s administrative discharge as an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service characterization. On 15 May 98, the applicant received an entry-level separation with uncharacterized character of service and narrative reason for separation as misconduct. He was credited with 2 months and 5 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there was no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing. Based on a review of the master personnel records, the discharge to include the SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. It was determined by his commander that the offense committed by the applicant was of a serious nature and that it demonstrated a total lack of Air Force core values. Based on this assessment, discharge was warranted. According to AFI 36-3208, paragraph 1.19.1, “Airmen are in entry level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active military service.” The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct as indicated and in accordance with DoD and Air Force Instructions. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Oct 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its 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 requested 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02302 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Aug 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 14.