RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00628 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Reentry (RE) code of 2B (Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge) be changed to 3A (First term airman who separates before completing 36 months (60 months for a 6-year enlistee) on current enlistment and who has no known disqualifying factors or ineligibility conditions except grade, skill level and insufficient TAFMS). 2. His Narrative Reason for Separation of Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure be removed or changed to Failure to Adapt. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was a young, arrogant and foolish kid when he enlisted. He destroyed the best part of his life when he was separated from military service. His discharge was processed without his input or acknowledgement. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty was inaccurate, with terms that were different than what was explained to him at the time of his discharge. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214. Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 18 Jun 02, the applicant contracted his enlistment in the Air Force. He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class, having assumed the grade effective and with a date of rank of 18 Oct 03. He was demoted to airman basic on 13 Nov 03. On 13 Nov 03, the applicant received an Article 15 for theft of automobile stereo equipment with a value of $380.00. His punishment consisted of a reduction to airman basic, restriction to the base for 30 days, 15 days of extra duty and a reprimand. The applicant was discharged on 24 Dec 03, with a general discharge. He served one year, six months and seven days of active service. The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), requesting his general discharge be upgraded and his RE code be changed. On 8 Mar 07, the AFDRB considered and denied his requests. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states there is insufficient evidence in the applicant’s military record pertaining to his discharge. DPSOS furthers states that absent the documentation, there is a presumption of regularity in which the applicant was afforded due process and the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the RE code the applicant received accurately reflects the general discharge he received and is the only authorized RE code for members receiving a general discharge. The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Aug 09 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. While the applicant contends his narrative reason for separation is incorrect and he was assigned the wrong RE code, he has provided no evidence to support his contentions. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence in his personnel records to confirm the circumstances of his discharge. Based on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and RE code were proper and in compliance with appropriate directives. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00628 in Executive Session on 15 Apr 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 09, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Military Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 7 Jul 09. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 28 Jul 09. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Aug 09. Panel Chair