RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05748 COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of “3K” (Secretarial Authority) be changed to a “1” RE code series that would allow him to reenlist. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) unanimously determined his general discharge was too harsh and he should have been given the opportunity to rehabilitate. The 3K code requires a waiver which is not being granted. His discharge was inequitable and unjust. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 July 2008. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208. The specific reasons are as follows: a. On or about 10 May 2009, the applicant did not report for duty and was disorderly by throwing beer bottles off of the fourth floor balcony. For this misconduct, he received non- judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). b. On or about 28 June 2010, the applicant reported for work intoxicated. For this misconduct, he received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting with counsel he elected to waive his right to submit a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged. The applicant was discharged on 24 November 2010 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He served 2 years and 4 months and 17 days on active duty and credited with 2 years and 11 days of foreign service. On 31 July 2012, the AFDRB considered and approved the applicant’s request that his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable, narrative reason for separation (Misconduct – Minor Disciplinary Infractions) and reentry (RE) code of 2C be changed. The board concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. However, in view of the foregoing findings, the board concluded that the overall quality of the applicant’s service was more accurately reflected by an honorable discharge, the narrative reason for separation was more accurately described as Secretarial Authority, and the RE code changed to 3K. The applicant’s record was changed accordingly. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant wants a RE code 1 series, however, AFI 36-2606, chapter 3, states not to separate members in the RE code 1 series except for lJ - “Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation. (All Airmen selected under the SRP and elect separation are given RE code IJ.).” The applicant should not be awarded a RE code lJ as his commander recommended him for separation which is in line with being denied reenlistment by his commander under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP). The applicant had two Article 15s in a 15 month period of his 2 year and 4 month career. It would not be equitable to give the applicant the same RE code that members receive who serve at least 75 percent of their first enlistment, are meeting standards, and are selected for reenlistment by their commander. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12 September 2014 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-05748 in Executive Session on 28 October 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05748 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 October 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 11 February 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 September 2014.