RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01982 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty, be changed in Block 4a and 4b to reflect his grade 
of Senior Airman (SrA) and E-4 respectively. (Administratively 
corrected) 

 

2. His reentry (RE) code of “4H” (Serving suspended punishment 
pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice) be 
changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist in the 
Reserves. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His record will show that his rank and pay grade during his 
enlistment was SrA/E-4. After completion of his four year 
enlistment, he was awarded an honorable discharge, after being 
given the opportunity to reenlist. He now has a family and 
wishes to enlist in the Reserves. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD 
Form 214. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served from 26 September 2000 to 25 September 2004. On 1 May 
2004, the applicant’s commander offered the applicant nonjudical 
punishment for failing to obey a lawful general order, in 
violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 
The applicant was accused of downloading sexually explicit 
material to his government computer. Upon consulting with 
counsel, he accepted the Article 15 and waived his right to 
demand a trial by court-martial. The applicant presented written 
matters to the commander. On 4 May 2004, the commander 
determined the applicant committed the alleged offense. The 
resulting punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the 
grade of airmen first class (E-3), forfeiture of $75 pay per 


month for two months, and a reprimand. The applicant chose not 
to appeal the punishment. He was offered a second opportunity to 
appeal his punishment when there was a change in command during 
the process, but declined again in a separate memorandum. A 
legal review of the Article 15 determined it was legally 
sufficient. 

 

On 14 May 2004, the applicant was notified that he was denied 
reenlistment based on a Driving under the Influence charge and 
the Article 15. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification and chose not to appeal the decision. 

 

On 25 September 2004, the applicant was honorably discharged from 
the Air Force while still serving the suspended reduction in 
rank. He served four years on active duty. His DD Form 214 
reflects he was discharged in the grade of airman first class (E-
3). 

 

On 20 July 2010, the applicant was notified by AFPC/DPSOA that 
his DD Form 214 reflects an incorrect RE code of “4H.” DPSOA 
indicates that he was denied reenlistment under the Selective 
Reenlistment Program; therefore, his RE code would be changed to 
“2X” (First term, second term or career airman considered but not 
selected for reenlistment under the SRB), as it more accurately 
reflects the reason for his discharge. 

 

On 30 July 2010, AFPC/DPSOE notified the applicant that a review 
of his record revealed that since he was serving under a 
suspended reduction in grade at the time of his separation, and, 
they found no documentation vacating the suspended punishment, 
his DD Form 214 would be corrected in Blocks 4a and 4b to reflect 
SrA/E4. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial in regard to the applicant’s 
nonjudicial punishment action. They defer to the appropriate 
agencies in regard to any other issues raised by the applicant. 
JAJM states the applicant’s issue does not appear to be with the 
Article 15 itself, but rather with the RE code. Since the basis 
for that code comes from the Article 15, they reviewed the 
nonjudicial punishment action for error or injustice. The 
applicant was provided all of his rights and privileges due under 
Article 15, UCMJ. The commander was in the best position to 
carefully weigh all of the evidence, make informed findings of 
fact, and arrive at a suitable punishment. The punishment 
imposed was appropriate to the offense and not unfairly harsh. 

 

The complete JAJM 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 15 October 2010, for review and comment within 30 days. As of 
this date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We note the applicant’s DD Form 214 will be administratively 
corrected by AFPC to reflect his rank and pay grade of SrA and E-
4, subsequent to Board action; therefore, we will only address 
his request to change his RE code. Insufficient relevant 
evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 
error or injustice that would warrant a change to the applicant’s 
RE code to allow him to reenlist. We note that AFPC/DPSOA 
indicates the appropriate RE code that should have been assigned 
at the time of the applicant’s separation is “2X” based on him 
not being selected for reenlistment under the Selective 
Reenlistment Program; and, that they will administratively 
correct his record to reflect the correct RE code. We concur 
with this correction. Therefore, in view of the above and 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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01982 in Executive Session on 10 February 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01982: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 May 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 30 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair