RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:                                     DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2022-00312

XXXXXXXXXX                                                COUNSEL: NONE
	
                                                                             HEARING REQUESTED: NOT INDICATED

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code 2P (Separated under AFR 39-10 as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, Basic Military Training eliminees discharged due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions, and so forth) be changed.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

When he was released from the Air Force his separation code reflected “SPD-JEM,” with a reenlistment code of “2P.”  This code reflects “AWOL, deserter dropped from rolls.” This characterization was totally unwarranted and has affected his work life.  He believes his discharge was unnecessary.  He should have had the proper training and supervision that would have allowed him to progress into a productive airman.    He is not nor has he ever been AWOL or a deserter.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an honorably discharged Air Force airman first class (E-3).

On 30 July 1980, according to DD Form 214, the applicant entered active duty.

On 24 February 1982, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged from the Air Force, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, chapter 3, paragraph 3-8L, with an honorable discharge.  The specific reasons for this action were that the applicant failed to adjust to the demands of military life, had difficulty with duty performance and attaining the required job skill proficiency on the job training and self-discipline.  Specifically, the applicant was counselled numerous times for reporting for work late, leaving his work area in a mess and for reporting for work with a uniform that was not neat, clean or presented a good military image, failure to demonstrate self-initiative or self-discipline in his daily duties, and for failing his Career Development Course end of course examination twice.

On 24 February 1982, the applicant was notified of the discharge action.

On 16 March 1982, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.

On 25 March 1982, the discharge authority approved the recommendation.

On 29 March 1982, the applicant was honorably discharged.  He served one year and eight months total active duty.  His narrative reason for separation reflects “Marginal Performer Assigned to Organizational Unit” and corresponding separation code of JEM.  His Reenlistment code reflect 2P.

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 denying the application.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice in reference to the applicant’s RE code based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts.

The applicant was discharged under AFR 39-10 with a narrative reason for separation of “Marginal Performer Assigned to Organization Unit” and an honorable character of service.  The applicant’s RE code was updated to the correct RE code of 2P based on his discharge being under AFM 39-10 as a marginal performer, per AFR 35-16, Volume I, USAF Reenlistment and Retention Program, dated 25 May 1981, Table 6-2, Item 14.

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 18 May 2022 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).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery within the three-year limit, the Board does not find the assertion supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  The Board notes the RE code issued at the time of discharge is correct.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and 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 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-2022-00312 in Executive Session on 30 August 2022:

, Chair, AFBCMR 
, 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 11 January 2022.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, w/atchs, dated 17 May 2022.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 18 May 2022.

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.