RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00453 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2B (Separated with a General discharge) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to one which will allow him to reenter the military. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force was justified in discharging him, but his RE code is too restrictive. His actions and misconduct were the result of immaturity and poor self-discipline. He has matured into an adult since his discharge, with strong moral character. He graduated from the Lincoln Technical Institute with certificates in welding, and his recruiter can begin the enlisted process as soon as his RE code is changed. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 27 Mar 07. On 7 Nov 07, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge for misconduct. The reasons for taking this action were: a.  On diverse occasions between on or about 28 Feb 07 and 15 Oct 07, the applicant violated a lawful general instruction by willfully failing to wear a military uniform while on and off duty while in Phase I. For this, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). b.  On or about 23 Aug 07, the applicant was disrespectful in language and deportment toward a non-commissioned officer by using profanity when referring to a non-commissioned officer. For this, he received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA). c.  On or about 7 Sep 07, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he failed to refrain from engaging in public display of affection as it was his duty to do so. For this, he received an LOR. d.  On or about 31 Aug 07, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he failed to refrain from using profanity. For this, he received an LOR. e.  On or about 20 Jul 07, the applicant willfully disobeyed a lawful order issued by a non-commissioned officer by failing to attend directed study. For this, he received an LOR. f.  On or about 10 Jul 07, the was derelict in the performance of his duties when he failed to refrain from intentionally failing Block I written test, as it was his duty to do. For this, he received an LOR. On 7 Nov 07, the applicant’s commander recommended him for a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. The applicant acknowledged receipt, waived his rights to consult with legal counsel and to submit statements on his own behalf. The case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient. On 15 Nov 07, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, without probation or rehabilitation. On 19 Nov 07, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with an Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKN (Misconduct, Minor Infractions), an RE code of “2B,” a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (Minor Infractions),” and was credited with 7 months, and 23 days of total active service. On 8 May 12, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed the applicant’s case and found the nature of the applicant’s misconduct was minor in nature and a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge was too harsh. They also determined the applicant’s RE code should remain unchanged. Therefore, the applicant was issue a new DD Form 214 reflecting an honorable discharge, an SPD code of “KFF” (Secretarial Authority), an RE code of “2B,” and a narrative reason for discharge of “Secretarial Authority. ” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOR does not make a recommendation, but explains the applicant’s discharge was processed correctly. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Although the AFDRB decided to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to Honorable and to change his SPD code and narrative reason for separation, no error or injustice occurred during the discharge process. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning the applicant’s RE code. The AFDRB which upgraded the applicant’s discharge did not upgrade his RE code, however, the RE code should have been automatically changed to “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge) when his character or service was change to honorable. His current RE code of “2B” is not compatible with honorable character of service. AFPC/DPSOA is administratively correcting the applicant’s DD Form 214 to reflect an RE code of “2C.” Other than this administrative correction, no additional changes are warranted. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11 Jun 15, 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, the Board voted to consider the application on its merits. 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 or to make any change beyond that which was administratively corrected. 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-2015-00453 in Executive Session on 6 Oct 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 12 Feb 15. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 May 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 15.