RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02466 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. His narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (Minor Infractions)” and separation code of “JKN” be changed. 3. His reentry (RE) code of 2B, which denotes “separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge” be changed. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He was discharged early because of three minor disciplinary infractions that occurred during the period Mar 03 to Mar 05. 2. He made mistakes throughout his short military career; he has always been an honest person, and is still uneasy about the events that led to his discharge. His punishment was severe; he often wonders how things would have turned out if he had opted for a court-martial. Accepting non-judicial punishment seemed like the best thing to do but certainly not the fairest. He misses the opportunity to have served his country. Since leaving the military he has attended the Ohio State Police and Corrections Academy; worked for the Trumball County Sheriff Department as a corrections officer, served one year as a reserve deputy sheriff, and was recently hired on at the Kinsman Township as a patrolman. He has been married for over seven years and has two children. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a personal statement and a congressional inquiry. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 Aug 02, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 14 Dec 05, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Air Force Military Training and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions. The specific reasons for the proposed action were: 1) Between May 03 to Dec 05, the applicant received three Article 15s, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), one for stealing property of the United States Air Force, one for being derelict in the performance of his duties, and one for exposing his genitalia in public. 2) On 16 Jun 03, the applicant failed to show for a mandatory appointment. For this misconduct, he received a letter of counseling (LOC). On 15 Dec 05, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting with counsel, submitted a statement in his own behalf. The Acting Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended that he receive a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 29 Dec 05, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208. On 12 Jan 06, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without the opportunity for probation and rehabilitation in the grade of airman first class. He served three years and five months of total active service. On 7 Dec 10, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the applicant’s discharge to include his characterization of service and narrative reason for separation was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. RE Code 2B, is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the United States Air Force, based on his involuntary discharge with general (under honorable conditions) character of service. In addition, the applicant did not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 Nov 11 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, we find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 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 Docket Number BC- 2011-02466 in Executive Session on 26 Jan 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 May 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOS, Letter, dated 19 Sep 11. Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPSOA, Letter, dated 21 Oct 11. Exhibit E. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 4 Nov 11. Panel Chair