RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-01394

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

  	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1.  His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded.

2.  His separation code JHJ (Unsatisfactory Performance) be upgraded.

3.  His Reentry (RE) code 2X (First Term, Second Term, or Career Airman non-selected for reenlistment) be upgraded.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He requests the upgrade in order to serve as an Air Force Reserve chaplain.  He was told by his recruiter and legal counsel the RE code 2X is in error and hinders his application for chaplain duty.  In 1999, he struggled under his shop chief’s leadership and was given four days to appeal why he should be retained.  In less than a week he was out-processed, returned stateside for separation and was denied due process.  Since his discharge, he served honorably in the Coast Guard for 11 years and is currently an active duty Army Chaplain at Fort Jackson, SC.  He has received several accommodations and good conduct service medals.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an Army first lieutenant (O-2).  

On 6 Aug 92, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  

The applicant’s available Military Human Resource Record (MHRR) does not contain any discharge proceedings.  The applicant provides the response to discharge notification memorandum dated 4 May 00, in which he states he was recommended for discharge as a result of his inability to do his job.  He agreed he was not a good structural maintenance troop but served his country honorably.  He had no misconduct during his tour and requested an honorable discharge.  

On 22 May 00, the applicant was discharged in the grade of E-4, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, an RE code 2X and a separation code and corresponding narrative reason for separation of JHJ (Unsatisfactory Performance).

On 17 Jul 11, per DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, provided by the applicant, he was separated from the Coast Guard in the grade of E-6, after having served since 3 Mar 99. 

On 16 Feb 16, according to Navy Personnel Command letter dated 24 Feb 16, the applicant voluntarily resigned his commission from the Navy Reserve and was honorably discharged in the grade of O-1.  

On 29 Aug 16, according to  Army Human Resources Command Special Order A-08-602203 dated 10 Aug 16,  the applicant was commissioned and appointed in the Regular Army and ordered to extended active duty in the grade of O-2.  

The applicant provides a letter of support from the Commanding General and Senior Commander, Army Training Center, Fort Jackson, SC.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denial.  The only records available from the applicant’s Air Force service is the DD Form 214 and the rebuttal letters provided by the applicant.  There is no MHRR to review for validation of the non-selection for reenlistment.  However, his RE code should be 2B (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions discharge) based on his involuntary discharge with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service, rather than 2X.  Unless otherwise directed by the Board, the applicant’s case should be forwarded to the AFPC DD Form 214 office for correction of his RE code to 2B.  

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 8 Apr 20 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.

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 concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSM and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  In this respect, the Board acknowledges the applicant’s subsequent service in the Coast Guard, Navy and Army and his desire to serve in the Air Force Reserve; however, no evidence has been provided to show an error or injustice occurred in the applicant’s discharge processing.  Therefore, other than the administrative correction that will be made to his RE code, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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-2019-01394 in Executive Session on 28 May 20:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 19 Sep 18.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 7 Apr 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 8 Apr 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.