RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02437 
 
  COUNSEL:   
 
  HEARING DESIRED:  NO 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
She be reinstated back on active duty; or in the alternative, her reentry (RE) code of 2B {involuntarily separated with a general or under other that honorable condition (UOTHC) discharge} be changed. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
While she did not provide a response when she received her Letter of Counseling (LOC), she did respond to the LOC, the subsequent Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Article 15 action in her response to the discharge notification.  She notes that some of the allegations were either untrue or there were extenuating and mitigating circumstances for her actions.  When she accepted the Article 15 proceedings, she was under the impression that there would be a chance for rehabilitation.   
 
The applicant submitted an inquiry to her Member of Congress shortly after her discharge; the congressional response introduced additional evidence/supplemental reasons for discharge, which were not a part of the original discharge notification.  The applicant and counsel believe that this additional information was erroneous, unfair, and unjust and violated her rights to due process, since she was never notified of the additional information or afforded an opportunity to respond. 
 
She still has a strong desire to serve her country and while she apologizes for her mistakes, she believes mistakes were made by her and the Air Force as well.  
 
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; her counsel’s brief, w/atchs, and extracts from her discharge package. 
 
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 4 Oct 05 for a period of four years. 
 
The squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for misconduct, specifically, minor disciplinary infractions.  The underlying basis for this action was a series of disciplinary infractions committed by the applicant.  Specifically, for the acts of misconduct, she received an Article 15 for failure to go, making a false official statement, and altering military permanent change of station (PCS) orders to terminate a lease; a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go and failure to obey an order, and a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failure to return to duty and was absent without leave (AWOL). 
 
After consulting with counsel and having been advised of her rights, she submitted statements in her own behalf.  The wing staff judge advocate recommended a general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  The discharge authority approved the general discharge without P&R. 
 
The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFR 36-3208, on 25 Jun 07, in the grade of airman, for misconduct –minor infractions, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  She was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 22 days of active duty service.   
 
Subsequent to her discharge, the applicant submitted an inquiry through her member of Congress.  The Secretary of the Air Force Legislative Liaison (SAF/LL), on 2 Jul 07 and 3 Dec 07, respectively, provided a response to the applicant’s Member of Congress. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant failed to show a willingness or ability to conform to minimum Air Force standards.  In accordance with the governing directives, a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of infractions in the current enlistment makes an airman subject to discharge.  The discharge record reveals the applicant received an Article 15, an LOR, and a LOC, and was afforded ample opportunity to correct her behavior.  In addition, they found the discharge, to include the character of service, consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.   
 
The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of a change to the RE code.  The RE code of 2B is required based on the involuntary discharge and general (under honorable conditions) character of service per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, chapter 3.  The applicant’s justification is in reference to her circumstances leading to her discharge and her discharge processing; she does not mention her RE code other than asking for it to be changed 
 
The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The applicant’s counsel provided a response to the evaluation, stating, in part, that it is untrue that the applicant had the opportunity to respond and submit a rebuttal on her own behalf, because it is clear from the record that information was considered that was never served on the applicant as part of her discharge package.  As a result, she was denied due process of law. 
 
The counsel’s complete response 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case, including the applicant’s contentions related to the incidents which transpired after discharge; however, based on the evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge authority and within the commander's discretionary authority.  The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe her discharge or character of service are contrary to the provisions of the governing Air Force instruction, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In addition, while the applicant and counsel believe the applicant’s due process rights were violated by the consideration of information to discharge the applicant that was not presented in the discharge notification; we are not persuaded the additional information was considered during the applicant’s discharge process.  While we recognize the contested information was included in a response to a Congressional Inquiry, there has not been evidence presented to show that it was deliberately withheld with the intent of depriving the applicant of her due process rights.  In fact, based on our review of the record, we believe the reasons presented in the notification memorandum to the applicant for her discharge were sufficient to effect the discharge.  Consequently, we believe that the missing information at best does not constitute a material error and we fail to see how its inclusion would have aided the applicant’s efforts to remain in the Air Force.  If anything, it appears the information would have strengthened the case for her discharge.  In addition, at the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation.  While we note the comments submitted in the applicant’s behalf, given the circumstances surrounding her separation, we find the RE code was issued in accordance with the governing instruction and that an upgrade of her RE code is not warranted.  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 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-2010-02437 in Executive Session on 15 and 18 March 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 , Panel Chair 
 , Member 
 , Member 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 10, w/atchs.  
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 5 Nov 10. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 1 Dec 10. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Feb 11. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 16 Mar 11. 
 
 
 
                                                                      Panel Chair