RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03767
		INDEX CODE:  100.06
		
		COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation and reentry (RE) codes on 
his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be changed so that he can serve again in the military.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The codes on his DD Form 214 do not represent the agreement he 
made when he signed his discharge papers. 

After two under age drinking incidents, he was referred to an 
alcohol abuse treatment program.  He finished the two-week 
course successfully and thought he could save his career and 
continue to serve in the Air Force.  However, he was discharged 
26 days after completing the program.  He questioned whether or 
not his discharge would keep him out of the military for good, 
and was told that his RE code would only limit him from 
reentering the Air Force.  However, when he tried to join the 
Navy he was told his RE code would not allow him to reenter any 
branch of the military.

The policy cited in AFI 44-121, Alcohol and Drug Abuse 
Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) Program, Section 3.6., and 
3.8., was not executed in a manner that would allow him an 
opportunity to complete his enlisted contract.  The timeline of 
events did not allow for any outcome metrics to be developed to 
measure the effectiveness of the education in assisting 
participants to make appropriate behavioral changes.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal 
statement, his DD Form 214, a statement of evidence, a timeline 
of events, excerpts from AFI 44-121, a Letter of Counseling, a 
Letter of Reprimand, and a discharge summary from River Crest 
Hospital.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
_



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 Nov 06.  His 
commander notified him on 23 Apr 07 of his intent to discharge 
him based on entry level performance and conduct for the 
following:  (1) a Letter of Counseling on 2 Feb 07, for failure 
to go to a mandatory formation; (2) an Article 15 on 14 Feb 07, 
for drinking alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21; and 
(3) a Letter of Reprimand on 30 Mar 07, for failure to refrain 
from drinking alcoholic beverages while under the age of 21.  He 
acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after 
consulting with legal counsel, waived his right to submit 
statements in his own behalf.  On 30 Apr 07, the case file was 
found legally sufficient to support separation.  On 7 May 07, 
applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation, by 
reason of entry level performance and conduct, and was issued an 
RE code of 2C (Entry-level separation without characterization 
of service).  He served on active duty for a period of six 
months and seven days.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request for an 
RE code upgrade.  There is no error or injustice noted.  The 
commander recommended discharge based on his misconduct and it 
was approved by the discharge authority. 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states based on the 
documentation on file, the discharge was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  He provided no evidence of an error or 
injustice that occurred during his discharge processing and he 
provided no facts warranting a change to his discharge.

Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service 
characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 
days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense 
(DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days 
continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and 
the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, 
his uncharacterized character of service is correct and in 
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 Feb 08, the applicant’s counsel submits additional 
documentation for the Board’s consideration.  

Applicant’s counsel states that on the basis of equity, the 
applicant requests that the Board consider the provisions of 
DODI 1332.28, Section E4.3, as it pertains to post service 
conduct in assessing the merits of this application.  The 
applicant acknowledges his mistakes and other incidents that 
were discreditable in nature.  He regrets these mistakes that 
occurred because of youth and immaturity, which ended his 
military career, and adversely affected his future.  The 
applicant submits documentation attesting to his positive post 
service conduct and accomplishments.

In response to the Air Force advisory the applicant states that 
he was told he was only going to be denied reenlistment by the 
Air Force.  This information was false, and had he known this 
when he was out processing for his discharge, he would have 
requested a lawyer and consulted with his parents.  He was also 
told his entry level separation would be as if he had never been 
in the military, and would only affect his reentry in the Air 
Force.  This was another false statement.  After attending the 
alcohol rehabilitation program, he learned a lot about alcohol 
use and its detriments.  He was never allowed the chance to 
prove that he learned from his alcohol abuse after successfully 
completing the program.  He made the decision not to appeal the 
entry level separation with an RE code of 214 [sic] because he 
was not given the correct information about his discharge.  He 
is concerned about any Federal employment he may pursue, that 
may reference his military records. 
  
Counsel’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 injustice.  The 
applicant has provided no evidence showing that his separation 
and RE codes are in error or contrary to the prevailing 
instruction.  The applicant’s discharge appears to be in 
compliance with the governing instruction and we find no 
evidence to indicate that his separation was inappropriate.  
Therefore, his uncharacterized character of service is correct 
and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.  An 
entry-level/ uncharacterized separation should not be viewed as 
negative and should not be confused with other types of 
separation.  The RE code which was issued at the time of 
applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of 
his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or 
unjust.  We therefore, conclude that no basis exists upon which 
to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.  
While a RE code of 2C indicates “Conditions Barring Immediate 
Reenlistment,” we note that the Navy may elect to waive his 
ineligibility and allow him to enlist if they so desire.  
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the 
contrary, we adopt the rationale provided by the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice and conclude that no basis exists 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 issue 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 Docket Number    
BC-2007-03767 in Executive Session on 20 Mar 08, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
	Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2007-03767 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Dec 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 14 Dec 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jan 08.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 14 Feb 08, w/atchs.




								XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
								Panel Chair