RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05647 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation as reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed as follows to allow him to reenlist: a.  His “uncharacterized” character of service be changed to honorable. b.  His separation code designator of JKK (drug abuse) be changed to a code which will allow him to reenlist. c.  His reentry (RE) code of 2C (involuntary separation with honorable discharge) be changed to IM (eligible to reenlist). d.  His narrative reason for separation of misconduct (drug abuse) be changed to verbiage which will allow him to reenlist. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He made a poor decision, learned from his mistake, and won’t make similar poor decisions in the future. He apologizes to the Air Force for not holding up his end of the bargain. He has been taking college courses; however, his poor decision has prevented him from finding a job. He is a leader now and not a follower, and is asking for a second chance. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________ ______________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 9 Jun 09. On 18 Nov 09, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge due to minor disciplinary infractions and drug abuse, with the drug abuse as the primary basis for the discharge. The primary reason for taking the discharge action was that on or about 24 Oct 09, the applicant wrongfully ingested an excess amount of Coricidin Cough & Cold Tablets with the intent to become intoxicated. The applicant consulted with legal counsel and submitted a statement on his own behalf. On 25 Nov 09, the applicant’s commander recommended him for discharge for minor disciplinary infractions and drug abuse, and the case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient. On 4 Dec 09, the discharge authority directed the applicant be involuntary discharged for minor disciplinary infractions and drug abuse. On 14 Dec 09, he was furnished an uncharacterized, entry-level separation (ELS) with a separation program designator (SPD) code of JKK, an RE code of 2C, and a narrative reason for separation of misconduct (drug abuse). He and was credited with six months and six days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the applicant’s discharge. Discharge processing is mandatory for drug abuse. Based upon the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence or identify any error or injustice in the discharge process. He provided no facts which warrant reinstatement. The applicant should not be reinstated into the Air Force, nor should there be any change in the service characterization or to the applicant’s DD Form 214. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The RE code of 2C is required based on the ELS with uncharacterized character of service, and the applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE Code. A complete copy of the 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 22 Mar 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2.  The application was timely filed. 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 (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Based on the available evidence of record it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to grant the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-05647 in Executive Session on 19 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 12. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 Feb 13. Exhibit D.  Letter, AFP/DPSOA, dated 11 Mar 13. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Mar 13. Panel Chair