RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02357
                                       INDEX CODE:  112.10
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 February 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Separation Program  Designator  (SPD)  Code  and  narrative  reason  for
separation be changed from JFF, Secretarial Authority, to KDH, Hardship,  so
he can utilize Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He feels the Air Force Discharge Review Board  (AFDRB)  failed  to  consider
the magnitude of adversities, caused by  the  health  circumstances  of  his
father, mother, and grandfather, that he was  facing  at  the  time  of  his
discharge.  These adversities lead to impairment of his mental and  physical
abilities to fulfill his duty to the Air Force.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal  statement;
copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release  or  Discharge  from  Active
Duty; letters/certificates of appreciation; student loan  summary/statement;
honorable discharge certificate; DD Form 293, Application for the Review  of
Discharge from the Armed Forces  of  the  United  States;  SAF/MRBR  letter;
grandfather’s Death Certificate; and medical  documents  pertaining  to  his
mother.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 October 1998, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the
age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a  period  of  four  years.
He was subsequently promoted to the grade of airman (E-2).

The applicant received  two  records  of  counseling  and  four  letters  of
reprimand between 21 December 1999 and 13 April 2000 for failure  to  go  at
the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty  and  on  two  occasions,
dereliction of the performance of duties.  On 24  May  2000,  the  applicant
received Article 15 punishment for failure to go at the time  prescribed  to
his appointed place of duty on  two  separate  occasions,  20  and        24
April 2000.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the  grade  of  airman
basic (suspended until 16 November 2000) and 15 days extra duty.  On 2  July
2000, his suspension of Article 15 punishment for reduction to the grade  of
airman basic was vacated with a new date of rank of 18 May 2000.

On 18 July 2000, his commander notified  the  applicant  of  his  intent  to
initiate  administrative  discharge  action  against   the   applicant   for
misconduct,  specifically;  minor  disciplinary  actions  under  Air   Force
Instruction 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section H, paragraph  5.49,  recommending  a
general discharge.  The applicant acknowledged receipt,  consulted  counsel,
and submitted a statement in his  own  behalf.   The  staff  judge  advocate
found the case legally sufficient and recommended a general  discharge.   On
7 August 2000, the discharge authority approved the applicant be  discharged
with a general (under  honorable  conditions)  characterization  of  service
without probation or rehabilitation.

The applicant was discharged effective 11 August 2000 with a general  (under
honorable conditions) characterization of service, a separation code of  JKN
(misconduct) and a reentry code of 2B (separated with a  general  or  under-
other-than-honorable–conditions discharge).  He served  1  year,  9  months,
and 28 days on active duty.

On 10 August 2001, the AFDRB approved the  applicant’s  request  to  upgrade
his characterization of discharge from general (under honorable  conditions)
to honorable and,  changed  his  SPD  code  to  JFF,  narrative  reason  for
separation to Secretarial  Authority,  and  RE  code  to  2C  (involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  DPPRS  states  the
applicant’s discharge was consistent with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation in affect  at  that  time  and  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority.   The  applicant  did  not
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in
his discharge processing.  It is  DPPRS’  opinion  that  the  applicant  has
provided  no  facts  warranting  a  change  to  his  narrative  reason   for
separation.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAT provides no recommendation.  Their review and  comments  are  for
information purposes only.  DPPAT states the  AFDRB’s  approval  to  upgrade
the applicant’s discharge  to  honorable  does  not  by  itself  grant  MGIB
entitlements.  The applicant’s reason for separation (code JFF-  Secretarial
Authority) translates to a separation that was for the  convenience  of  the
government.  The Veteran’s Administration (VA) will approve  benefits  under
this discharge code if a member has served 30  months  of  a  three-year  or
more commitment.  In  the  applicant’s  case,  even  though  he  elected  to
participate in the MGIB program upon his initial entry to  active  duty  and
made the $1,200 contribution, he served only 1 year, 9 months, and  28  days
of active duty, thus, he is not eligible for MGIB  benefits.   A  separation
code of KDH – Hardship, allows the VA to provide MGIB benefits to  a  member
based on the number of months he served under honorable conditions.

The DPPAT evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He has tried to obtain his military medical records to provide  evidence  to
support his claim of the medical assistance he received  to  help  him  cope
with the depression he suffered brought on by hardships  in  his  family  at
the time.  His medical records would  also  provide  evidence  that  he  was
prescribed antidepressant medication.  However, his attempts to  obtain  his
medical records have proven  that  they  have  been  misplaced  between  the
Atlanta  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs,  St.  Louis  Records  Management
Center, and Appeals Management Center in Washington, DC.   All  offices  are
stating his medical records are not at their respective locations.   He  has
provided documents to support his attempt to  locate  his  military  medical
records.  He feels these records would help to support his claim  to  change
his SPD code and narrative  reason  for  separation  from  JFF,  Secretarial
Authority to KDH, Hardship.

The applicant’s rebuttal, 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 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.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
provided, we do not find it sufficient to warrant  approval  of  the  relief
the applicant  seeks  from  this  Board.   We  have  reviewed  the  decision
document of the AFDRB and, it appears the AFDRB’s findings  were  based  not
on an error, but rather on an inequity.  Specifically, the  AFDRB  concluded
that the discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation  and  was  within   the   sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  However, the AFDRB  concluded  there
was sufficient mitigation  and  extenuation  to  upgrade  his  discharge  to
honorable, change his  SPD  Code  to  JFF,  and  his  narrative  reason  for
separation to Secretarial Authority.  In our opinion, based on the  totality
of the evidence provided, the corrections to  the  record  approved  by  the
AFDRB were proper and fitting, and further relief would not be  appropriate.
 In view of the foregoing, we conclude that no  basis  exists  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 9 January 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                 Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2006-02357:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPRS Letter, dated 15 Sep 06.
    Exhibit D.  AFPC/DPPAT Letter, dated 11 Oct 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Oct 06.
    Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 7 Dec 06, w/atchs.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair