RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-02945

  	COUNSEL: NONE
  
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation code be changed so she can reenter the military.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was young and did not know how to conduct herself.  She received an Article 15 due to having under aged people in her home when she was 21/22 years old.  No one was intoxicated and the younger adults did not drink.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 Mar 13, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, paragraph 5.50 for a Pattern of Misconduct.  Specifically, she consumed alcoholic beverages in her home for which she received an Article 15, failed to obey a direct order for which she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), and for stealing lip-gloss for which she received another Article 15.  She acknowledged receipt of the notification for discharge and was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and submit statements on her own behalf.

On 29 Mar 13, the discharge action was found legally sufficient.

On 8 Apr 13, the applicant received a UHC (general) discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT,” a separation code of “JKA” (Service initiated discharge directed by established directive resulting from a pattern of misconduct of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities), and a reentry (RE) code of “2B” (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions discharge).  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application.  The commander indicated she was afforded several opportunities to correct her behavior with no success; the non-judicial punishments and LOR displayed a pattern of misconduct that was incompatible with continued military service.  Furthermore, the commander and discharge authority correctly concluded that the negative aspects of the applicant’s conduct outweighed any positive aspects of her brief military career, thus, earning the applicant a general service characterization.  Therefore, the SPD code, narrative reason for separation and character of service are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  It should be noted that if the Board should elect to grant the applicant’s request, they will need to also address the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code since it is also tied to reentry into the military.    

The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying changing the applicant’s RE code.  The applicant was involuntarily discharged on 8 Apr 2013 for Pattern of Misconduct with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service after serving 8 months and 9 days of service.  The applicant received a RE code 2B based on her general discharge.  If applicant’s character of service is upgraded to honorable by the Board now or at a later point her RE code would also need to be changed to 2C--(Involuntarily separated with an Honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) as the current RE code of 2B is only compatible with a General or worse character of service.   The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 12 Mar 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.   After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2STM and AFPC/DP2SSM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  Moreover, the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-02945 in Executive Session on 30 May 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 15 Jun 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 2 Nov 17.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 4 Dec 17.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 12 Mar 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9 pertaining to Docket Number BC-2017-02945.