RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02332 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His narrative reason for discharge (conscientious objector 
(CO)), with the corresponding Separation Program Designator 
(SPD) code of KCM and his reentry (RE) code of 2N (conscientious 
objector whose religious convictions preclude unrestricted 
assignment) be changed. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He requested to be transferred to a non-combatant; however, 
somehow his package was lost and he did not receive notification 
of this status until Apr 09. He resubmitted a whole new package 
in Jul 09. He made it very clear that he had no desire to 
separate and wanted to finish a 20 year career. He was advised 
that more than likely he would have to separate. He tried to get 
his package pulled; however, he was unsuccessful. 

 

In accordance with the Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 
1300.06, Conscientious Objector, he should have had an 
opportunity to submit a rebuttal; however, he was never afforded 
this opportunity. Throughout the whole process, he has felt 
lied to and deceived, and believes his discharge should be 
reflected as honorable under normal conditions. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 
8 Mar 10 separation; a letter of character reference, and an 
extract from DODI 1300.6. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 


The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted 
from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the 
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, stating, in part, based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation. The applicant 
provides no facts warranting a change to the narrative reason 
for separation. 

 

The applicant states that his request for CO status took longer 
than it should have. Although, the applicant makes a valid 
point that his request for discharge as a CO did take longer 
than it should have, he was the beneficiary of temporary CO 
status since May 08. The applicant had not performed the normal 
duties of a Security Forces Airman and avoided hazardous duty in 
Afghanistan. Furthermore, the applicant applied for a CO 
discharge with full knowledge of the effect that filing for a CO 
discharge would have on his military career. He was briefed, 
and signed a counseling statement, that as a CO, he may not be 
eligible for voluntary enlistment, reenlistment, or active 
service in the Armed Forces by reasons of a noncombatant CO 
classification. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA notes that the RE code of 2N is correct; however, if 
the applicant’s request to change his narrative reason for 
separation is approved, the 2N RE code would no longer apply. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant indicates that some of the “facts” in the 
evaluation were not clear. Once he realized that his initial 
request had been lost, he had to reinitiate the whole process, 
to include a report from his physicist [sic], chaplain, and 
letters of support, which was a painful process the first time 
around. He was never informed about the process, never given 
due process, which was confirmed by the Area Defense Counsel 
(ADC). 

 

He is asking to correct his narrative reason for separation to 
reflect that he served his full enlistment and is not requesting 
reenlistment into military service. 

 


The applicant’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 error or injustice. The discharge 
appears to be in compliance with the governing instruction and 
we find no evidence to indicate that his separation or the 
reason for his separation from the Air Force were inappropriate, 
in error, or unjust. In respect to the applicant’s RE code, we 
note in his response to the evaluation, he is no longer 
interested in a change to his RE code. However, at the time of 
his separation, the applicant’s RE code was predicated upon the 
quality of his service and the circumstances of his separation. 
The RE code of 2N accurately reflects that he was honorably 
separated as a conscientious objector. Therefore, after 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, and given the 
circumstances surrounding his separation, we believe the RE code 
issued was in accordance with the governing instructions. In 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 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(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2010-02332 in Executive Session on 26 January 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 


 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 8 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 9 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair