RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03916 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code be changed to one which will allow him to reenter the armed services. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Because the Discharge Review Board (DRB) upgraded his character of service to honorable on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, he should be allowed to reenlist. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 24 Aug 10. On 30 Jan 13, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge for Defective Enlistment: Fraudulent Entry, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service. The reason for taking this action was that the applicant knowingly withheld information about and misrepresented his past use of illegal drugs when he applied for enlistment. The applicant was notified of his right to consult with counsel, and to submit statements in his own behalf. On 11 Feb 13, the applicant’s commander recommended him for discharge for Defective Enlistment: Fraudulent Entry. The case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient. On 1 Mar 13, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged for Defective Entry: Fraudulent Enlistment, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) service characterization, and he not be authorized probation or rehabilitation. On 14 Mar 13, the applicant was furnished an General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with a Narrative Reason for Discharge of “Fraudulent Entry (Drug Abuse),” an RE code of 2B, and was not credited with active service. On 4 Apr 14, the DRB reviewed his case. The DRB determine the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. However, the DRB also concluded, based upon the overall quality of the applicant’s service and the questions concerning his wife’s testimony, that his DD Form 214 was to be corrected to reflect an Honorable discharge, with a Narrative Reason for Discharge of “Secretarial Authority,” a Separation Code of “KFF,” and he be credited with 2 years, 6 months, and 21 days of total active service. On 17 Oct 14, AFPC/DPSOR directed the applicant’s DD Form 214 be corrected to change his RE code from 2B to read 2C. 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. On 30 Jun 14, a new DD Form 214 was issued to the applicant with an Honorable character of service and a Narrative Reason for Separation of “Secretarial Authority.” However, the updated DD Form 214 erroneously retained the applicant’s original RE code of 2B. Subsequently, in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, his RE code of 2B was administratively corrected to an RE code of 2C (Involuntary separation with an Honorable discharge) based upon his character of service being changed to Honorable. Recommend the applicant’s RE code remain as 2C. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA 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 17 Nov 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 timely filed. 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 AFPC/DPSOA 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. 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-2014-03916 in Executive Session on 9 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 Oct 14. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14.