RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2018-00985

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1.  His Reentry (RE) code be changed from 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service), to an RE code allowing him to reenlist in the Armed Forces.  

2.  His separation code of JGA (Entry-level status performance and conduct or entry-level status performance) and corresponding narrative reason for separation be changed to allow him to reenlist in the Armed Forces.

3.  His “uncharacterized” character of service be changed.

4.  His “entry-level separation” type of separation be changed.
 
APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

His separation and RE code are an error and an injustice.  He was unaware that his “uncharacterized honorable” discharge from the Air Force barred him from reenlistment in the Armed Forces.  

His discharge was improper because his commander based his decision on an official statement by his former recruiter.  Specifically, his recruiter’s statement contained falsehoods and misstatements.  

His commander provided no preprocessing counseling or rehabilitation prior to his discharge proceedings in accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The Air Force has no record of providing any efforts to counsel or rehabilitate him in order to meet Air Force standards.  

He did not receive effective assistance of his Air Force counsel during his discharge proceedings.  Specifically, his counsel did not independently investigate his assertions or assist him in anyway, other than to expedite the improper and inequitable discharge.  His legal counsel did not advise him that his entry-level separation would bar him from reentry into the Armed Forces.

His discharge was inequitable because current discharge policies and procedures contained in AFI 36-2606 [sic], Administrative Discharge Procedures For Commissioned Officers, dated 8 Jun 17,   in Figure 6.1_Sample Notification Memorandum—Entry Level Separation; are materially different from those in effect during his enlistment.  By applying current discharge standards, he was not properly notified his entry-level separation would carry an RE code barring reenlistment.  

In the alternative, he has received numerous certificates and letters of recommendation from the Armed Forces based on his post-service work with the Armed Forces.  Based on his current capability to serve with his highly specialized technical expertise in thermos-fluids/aero-propulsion with a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering; the Board should change his RE code to allow reenlistment in the Armed Forces based on clemency.

The applicant’s submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 3 Mar 99.  

On 5 Aug 99, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment because on or about 30 Jun 99, without authority, he absented himself from his place of duty, and remained so absent until on or about 3 Aug  99, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  His punishment included a forfeiture of $479 pay per month for 2 months, restriction to base for 30 days, and 30 days extra duty.  

On 9 Aug 99, the applicant advised his commander he had decided to accept the Article 15.  He took full responsibility for his actions, but wanted the commander to know that he felt his recruiter misled him about educational opportunities, career field opportunities, and duty station preference. 

On 16 Aug 99, the Air Force recruiter provided the applicant’s commander a memorandum summarizing the applicant’s recruitment process.  She opined that the applicant’s recollection of his enlistment process was far from what transpired.  The applicant did not have an educational career in progress.  He was given handouts and briefed on the Montgomery GI Bill benefits during his processing.  The recruiter opined that during background checks processing, applicants are briefed that guarantees of military geographic assignment is illegal and unauthorized.  

On 27 Aug 99, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, for failure to adapt to military standards.  His conduct showed a lack of aptitude for military service, reluctance to make the effort necessary to meet Air Force standards of conduct, a lack of self-discipline, and unable to adapt to the military environment, as he proved when he was absent without leave for 30 days.  

On 2 Sep 99, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and that in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Chapter 7, paragraph 7.2.6., Entry-level performance or conduct separations, paragraph 5.22, states airmen are not eligible for probation and rehabilitation.  

On 8 Sep 99, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge.  

On 14 Sep 99, the applicant received an entry-level separation discharge, with uncharacterized service, and was credited with 6 months and 12 days of active service.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

POST-SERVICE INFORMATION

With the applicant’s DD Form 149, he provided post-service information, including a standard criminal history report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  According to the report, on 25 Oct 97, the applicant was cited for Trespassing, and the charges were “Nolle Prossed” (dismissed) on 7 Jan 98.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSR recommends denying the application, indicating there is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.  On 14 Sep 99, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Section 5D—Entry-Level Performance and Conduct, with an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. Airmen are given Entry-level separation/Uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service.  The Department of Defense 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.  The applicant served on active duty for 6 months and 12 days.  Based on review of the applicant’s master of personnel record, his commander provided ample justification to the base discharge authority to support separation.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 19 Feb 20 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 11 Mar 20.  In his response, the applicant contends the advisory opinion provided inadequate and anorectic justification.  He reiterates his original contentions that his discharge was based on false information, ineffective assistance from his counsel, and unfavorable policies and procedures that were in effect at the time of his discharge.   

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed, but it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.

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

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board finds that the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the regulations and within the commander's discretionary authority.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant has not provided substantial evidence that would convince the Board the discharge was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation.  Furthermore the applicant had less than six months of service when the discharge action was initiated.  Therefore, the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendations of AFPC/DP2SSR, and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Accordingly, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2018-00985 in Executive Session on 24 Sep 20:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted to against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 18 Feb 18.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSR, dated 10 Feb 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 19 Feb 20.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 11 Mar 2020.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings pertaining to Docket Number BC-2018-00985, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.