RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-04166

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to show that:

a.	Block 8, Station Where Separated, reflect McGuire AFB, NJ instead of Charleston AFB, SC.

b.	Block 11, Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty, reflect Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 20650, Imagery Interpretation Specialist instead of 20630, Apprentice Imagery Interpreter Specialist.  (Administratively corrected with DD Form 215)

c.	Block 27, Reenlistment Code (RE), be changed from 2P (Separated under AFR 39-10 as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, Basic Military Training eliminees discharge due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions, etc).   

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He separated from McGuire AFB, NJ and is not a homosexual [sic].  He was intimidated by members in his command and false information was provided to the Veteran’s service [sic].  In addition, Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, was changed four times.  

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force airman (E-2).  

According to DD Form 214 for period of service 21 Dec 78 to 5 May 80, the applicant received an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation as “marginal performer assigned to organization unit” and a reenlistment code of 2P.  In addition, Block 8, Station Where Separated, of the DD 214 reflects Charleston AFB, SC.  

On 28 Feb 80, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 3-81 for his inability to adjust to the demands of military life and the high standards set forth by the United States Air Force.  The specific reasons for the action were as follows:

	a. Violating the school center's dormitory visitation policy for which he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information File (UIF).  

	b. Failure to appear for scheduled appointments and his place of duty at the prescribed time on multiple occasions, for which he received several Letters of Counseling (LOC) and nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.  

On 28 Feb 80, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge recommendation and indicated that he did not desire military legal counsel, would not submit statements in support of his request for retention, and did not request retention in the Air Force.  

On 20 Apr 80, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s recommendation for discharge and directed that he be given an honorable discharge.  The authority for separation was AFR 39-10, Chapter 3, Section B, Paragraph 3-81.

On 5 May 80 AF Form 100, Request for Authorization for Separation, shows that the applicant was relieved from his assignment with the 497 Recon Technical Group (USAFE) and honorably discharged.  In addition, it shows that the applicant’s servicing personnel office was Charleston AFB.  

According to AF Form 330, Records Transmittal Request, Charleston AFB, SC held and authenticated the applicant’s official military personnel record.  

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

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

AFI 36-3202, Table 4, How to Prepare DD Form 214, Rule 11 states that Block 8, Station Where Separated, is the “Location of facility where separation documents were prepared or, if coming from an overseas location, it will be the base where the documents are authenticated.”  As such, Charleston AFB, was the applicant’s servicing personnel office and is the office that authenticated and transferred the applicant’s documents to the Air Force Military Personnel Center.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSM, recommends denying the application, as there is no evidence of an error of injustice in reference to the applicant’s RE code.  On 20 Apr 80, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged under AFR 39-10 and on 5 May 80 the applicant received an honorable discharge, a narrative reason for separation of “Marginal Performer Assigned to Organization Unit,” and given RE code 2P for marginal performance under the AFR 39-10 authority.

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 13 Jul 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.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, other than the administrative correction to his record, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; 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-2019-04166 in Executive Session on 2 Sep 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, dated 6 Aug 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 2 Apr 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 13 Jul 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.