RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02466 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be 
upgraded to honorable. 

 

2. His narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (Minor 
Infractions)” and separation code of “JKN” be changed. 

 

3. His reentry (RE) code of 2B, which denotes “separated with a 
general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge” be changed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. He was discharged early because of three minor disciplinary 
infractions that occurred during the period Mar 03 to Mar 05. 

 

2. He made mistakes throughout his short military career; he has 
always been an honest person, and is still uneasy about the 
events that led to his discharge. 

 

His punishment was severe; he often wonders how things would 
have turned out if he had opted for a court-martial. Accepting 
non-judicial punishment seemed like the best thing to do but 
certainly not the fairest. He misses the opportunity to have 
served his country. 

 

Since leaving the military he has attended the Ohio State Police 
and Corrections Academy; worked for the Trumball County Sheriff 
Department as a corrections officer, served one year as a 
reserve deputy sheriff, and was recently hired on at the Kinsman 
Township as a patrolman. He has been married for over seven 
years and has two children. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a 
personal statement and a congressional inquiry. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 13 Aug 02, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 14 Dec 05, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under 
the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Air Force Military Training and 
AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for 
Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions. The specific 
reasons for the proposed action were: 

 

1) Between May 03 to Dec 05, the applicant received three 
Article 15s, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), one for 
stealing property of the United States Air Force, one for being 
derelict in the performance of his duties, and one for exposing 
his genitalia in public. 

 

2) On 16 Jun 03, the applicant failed to show for a mandatory 
appointment. For this misconduct, he received a letter of 
counseling (LOC). 

 

On 15 Dec 05, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and after consulting with counsel, 
submitted a statement in his own behalf. 

 

The Acting Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it 
legally sufficient to support separation and recommended that he 
receive a general discharge without probation and 
rehabilitation. 

 

On 29 Dec 05, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s 
discharge under the provisions of AFI 36-3208. On 12 Jan 06, 
the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge without the opportunity 
for probation and rehabilitation in the grade of airman first 
class. He served three years and five months of total active 
service. 

 

On 7 Dec 10, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied 
the applicant’s request for upgrade of his general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. Based on the documentation on 
file in the master personnel records, the applicant’s discharge 
to include his characterization of service and narrative reason 
for separation was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. 

 


The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. RE Code 2B, is required per 
AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the United States Air Force, based 
on his involuntary discharge with general (under honorable 
conditions) character of service. In addition, the applicant 
did not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference 
to his RE code. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 Nov 11 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a 
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. 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; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, we find 
insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the 
discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Therefore, 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 
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-
2011-02466 in Executive Session on 26 Jan 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOS, Letter, dated 19 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPSOA, Letter, dated 21 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 4 Nov 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair