RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03289 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to reflect: 1.  He was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). (Administratively resolved) 2.  Item 26, Separation code HFX (Personality Disorder) be changed to reflect he separated under the early-out program of the Gram Rudman Act. 3.  Item 27, Reenlistment (RE) code 2C be changed to an RE code allowing reenlistment in the military. 4.  Item 28, Narrative Reason for Separation - Conditions that interfere with military service-not disability character and behavior disorder, be changed to reflect he separated under the Gram Rudman early out program. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214 is inaccurate; it does not reflect his AFCM, and the narrative reason for separation, the SPD and RE codes, are in error reflecting the opinion of the group commander, not that he took an early out under the Gram Rudman program. On his last technical sergeant (E-6) exam (cycle 89A6) he missed promotion by .25 points, and had his records reflected the AFCM, he would have had enough points for the E-6 promotion on the next promotion cycle and he would have stayed in. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 28 Jan 75. On 17 Aug 88, the Chief, Inpatient Psychiatric Service, rendered a mental health evaluation of the applicant; the diagnosis was Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Symptoms of this disorder result in difficulties to work within the military system, and an essential change in the applicant’s personality were not expected. On 30 Aug 88, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending his discharge for Character and Behavior Disorder according to AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, as a result of the Mental Health Evaluation, dated 17 Aug 88. On 19 Sep 88, the applicant offered his conditional waiver of his rights associated with an administrative discharge board hearing, contingent upon the receipt of an honorable discharge. On 20 Sep 88, the Judge Advocate advised the discharge authority that he had reviewed the applicant’s case file and found it legally sufficient to support discharge action for a personality disorder pursuant to AFR 39-10. On 24 Sep 88, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s waiver and directed his return to the CONUS and tendered an Honorable Discharge. On 11 Oct 88, the applicant submitted DD Form 82, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal From the Armed Forces of the United States, requesting a change reason for discharge to straight Honorable, with all codes, and/or medical reasons removed. On 19 Oct 88, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 13 years, 8 months, and 21 days of active service. On 27 Jan 89, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) advised the applicant that they carefully reviewed and considered all facts of record in his case, and after thorough deliberation, the Board concluded a change in the reason and authority for his discharge was not warranted, and his application was denied. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice warranting changing the applicant’s RE code 2C. He was involuntarily discharged for “Conditions that Interfere with military Service-Not Disability Character and Behavior Disorder.” Per AFR 35-16, The USAF Reenlistment, Retention, and NCO Status Programs, the applicant received a RE code 2C—“Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10 with an honorable discharge, or entry level separation without characterization of service.” The applicant acknowledged his commander’s recommendation to involuntarily discharge him under Character and Behavior Disorder in accordance with AFR 39-10 on 30 Aug 88. He does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code 2C. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends no action required regarding award of the AFCM; the applicant’s record has been administratively corrected. Based on their review of the applicant’s official military personnel record, they were able to determine the AFCM and Korean Defense Service Medal (KDSM) should have been awarded during his service from 28 Jan 75 to 19 Oct 88. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice warranting changing the applicant’s SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service. The applicant's request was not filed within three years of discovery of the alleged error or injustice. It is not in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. Notwithstanding the timeliness of this application, based on the documentation on file in his mater 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. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the applicant’s contention that he would have been promoted had his records reflected the award of the AFCM. Air Force promotion policy (AFR 39-29, Promotion of Airmen, 3 Jan 84, Table 8, Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD), and the date of the DECOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. Each promotion cycle has an established PECD which is used to determine the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) or Chief Enlisted Manager (CEM) Code the member will be considered, as well as which performance reports and decorations will be used in the promotion process. The PECD for cycle 89A6 was 31 Dec 87. As evidenced by the close out date (1 Jun 88) of the applicant’s AFCM citation, the decoration did not meet the criteria for promotion credit during this cycle because it was after the PECD. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 Apr 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G). 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 opinions and recommendation 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. Notwithstanding the above, we note that AFPC/DPSID was able to determine the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) and Korean Defense Service Medal (KDSM) should have been awarded during his service from 28 Jan 75 to 19 Oct 88, and administratively corrected his record to reflect such. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any relief beyond that rendered administratively. 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-2014-03289 in Executive Session on 4 Nov 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03289 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 Sep 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 12 Dec 14,   w/atch. Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Jan 15. Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 17 Mar 15. Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 15.