-

t

.

 

0 %  

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUL  1 3  @% 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03351 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

Her reenlistment eligibility  (RE) code  (2C) be  changed  to allow 
her to reenter active duty. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

Her ability to serve was impaired due to improper training. 

In support of her request, she submitted a letter from Retirements 
and  Separations  Section  and  a  copy  of  the  AFDRB  Decisional 
Rationale. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

.-- 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 May 1994 for 
four years.  She was subsequently promoted to the grade of airman 
first class (E-3).  There are no Airman Performance Reports  (APRs) 
in her record. 

On  26  September  1995,  applicant  was  notified  of  her  squadron 
commander's intent  to  impose nonjudicial punishment  upon her  for 
the  following reasons:  Violation of  the UCMJ, Article  8 6 :  
You 
did,  on  or  about  7  September  1995,  without  authority,  absent 
yourself from your unit at which you were required to be to wit:- 
61st Mission Support Squadron, located at Los Angeles AFB, and did 
remain so absent until on or about  11 September 1995;  Violation 
of the UCMJ, Article 92 for: You, who knew of your duties at Los 
Angeles  AFB,  on  or  about  31 August  1995, were  derelict  in  the 
performance of those duties in that you negligently failed to have 
enough  funds  for  expenses,  including  costs  for  travel  before 
departing for leave, as it was your duty to do. 

On 5 October 1995, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived 
her  right  to a  trial by  court-martial, she requested a personal 
appearance and submitted a written presentation. 

On  6 October  1995,  she  was  found  not  guilty  by  her  squadron 
commander  of  the  Article  8 6   offense;  however,  the  squadron 
commander found applicant guilty of  the Article  92 offense.  The 

commander imposed the following punishment: 
per month f o r   two months. 
Applicant  appealed  the  punishment  and 
On  20 October  1995,  the 
presentation. 
partially  granted  her  appeal  by  approving 
punishment  that provided for forfeiture of 
two  months. 
The  Article  15  was  filed 
Information File  (UIF). 

forfeiture of $427.00 

submitted  a  written 
appellate  authority 
only  so  much  of  the 
$150.00 per month  for 
in  her  Unfavorable 

* 

On 2 November  1995,  the applicant received 
a Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR) for the following reasons:  a) On 3 October 1995, she failed 
to go at the prescribed time to her place of duty; b) On 3 October 
1995,  she  went,  without  authority,  from -her  assigned  place  of 
duty; c) On 17 October 1995, she reported to her assigned place of 
duty  10 minutes  late; and d)  On  1 November  1995  she arrived  at 
work 55 minutes late. 
On 2 November 1995, applicant was notified of her squadron section 
commander's intent to  recommend her  for a  general discharge for 
minor  disciplinary  infractions, in  accordance with  AFI  36-3208, 
paragraph  5.49. 
The  commander  cited  12  different  infractions 
committed by applicant between 18 May 1995 through 1 November 1995 
f o r   which she received an Article 15 and LOR with UIF. 
The  squadron section commander advised applicant of her right to 
consult  legal  counsel  and  submit  statements in  her  own  behalf. 
She was advised that her failure to consult counsel or to submit 
statements would constitute a waiver of her right to do so. 

The squadron section commander indicated in her recommendation for 
discharge  action  that  she  did  not  recommend  probation  and 
rehabilitation  (P&R)  because  despite  numerous  counselings  and 
disciplinary  measures,  applicant  refused  to  rehabilitate  and 
become  a productive military  member.  Applicant  was  given every 
opportunity to correct her behavior, but was unresponsive. 
On  7 November  1995,  after  consulting  with  counsel,  applicant 
submitted statements in her own behalf. 
A  legal  review  was  conducted  on  8 November  1995  in  which  the 
Chief,  Civil  Law  recommended  applicant  be  discharged  with  a- 
general discharge, without P&R.  The discharge authority approved 
the general discharge on 11 November 1995. 
Applicant  was  discharge  on  13 November  1995,  in  the  grade  of 
airman  first  class with  a general  discharge, in accordance with 
AFI  3 6 - 3 2 0 8 ,   paragraph 5.49  for misconduct.  She was issued an RE 
code of 2B  (Involuntarily separated with a general or under-other- 
than-honorable conditions  (UOTHC) discharge) .  She served a total 
of one year, six months, and three days. 
On  18 July  1 9 9 6 ,   she appealed to  the Air  Force Discharge Review 
Board  (AFDRB) f o r   upgrade of  discharge, change  of  the  narrative 
reason  and  change  of  RE  code.  On  14 August  1997,  the  AFDRB 
upgraded her discharge to honorable, changed the narrative reason 
to  Secretarial  Authority  and  her  RE  code  to  2C  (Involuntarily 

2 

AFBCMR 97-0335 1 

separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation 
without characterization of service). 

The Special Programs and BCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES,  reviewed the 
application and stated that the RE code 2 C   is correct.  The ty-pe 
of discharge drove assignment of the RE code. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A  copy  of  the  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on 
The 
27 January  1998  for  review  and  comments  within  30  days. 
applicant  submitted  three  letters  of  support  from  prior  co- 
workers. 

Copies of the letters are attached at Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

.-- 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.  The 
Secretary of the Air Force has  statutory authority to promulgate 
rules  and  regulations  governing  the  administration  of  the  Air 
Force.  In the exercise of that authority, he has determined that 
members separated from the Air Force would be furnished an RE code 
predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of 
their separation.  At the time an RE code is assigned, it reflects 
the  Air  Force  position  regarding whether  or  not  or  under  what- 
circumstances the individual should be allowed to reenlist.  There 
has been no showing that  the Secretary abused this discretionary 
authority or that the particular RE code assigned was contrary to 
Therefore ,  the  opinion  and 
the  prevailing  directive. 
recommendation of  the Air  Force  are  agreed  with  and  we  find no 
basis  for  concluding  that  the  applicant's RE  code  is  either  in 
error or unjust 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; 
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 

3 

AFBCMR 97-0335 1 

m n . 1  

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 this application in 
Executive  Session  on  2  June  1998,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member 
Ms Kay Byrne, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 97 with atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 17 Nov 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Dec 97. 
Exhibit E.  Supporting Letters, faxed 13 Apr 98. 

Panel Chair 

h 

" -  

AFBCMR 97-03 3 5 1.