DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00829 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF:   
 
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded 
to  honorable  and  his  reentry  (RE)  code  of  2B  (Approved 
involuntary  separation  with  less  than  honorable  discharge)  be 
changed. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He feels his discharge and RE code are unjust on the grounds of 
double  jeopardy.    His  commander  chose  to  court-martial  him 
rather  than  follow  the  standard  non-judicial  punishment  route 
for  petty  larceny  of  an  item  with  no  value.    The  incident  was 
not  a  crime  under  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  under 
Article 112(a) since it was an unactivated gift card.  After the 
court-martial, he was punished again with a discharge, which was 
not  a  possible  punishment  of  the  court-martial.    His  defense 
attorney  told  him  his  discharge  would  be  waiverable  by  other 
branches should he wish to reenlist.  
 
The applicant submits no supporting documentation. 
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 July 2006. 
On  29  October  2008,  the  applicant  was  notified  of  his 
commander’s  intent  to  discharge  him  from  the  Air  Force  for 
Misconduct, a pattern of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good 
order  and  discipline.    Specifically,  the  applicant  received  a 
Letter of Reprimand for wrongfully appropriating a Playstation; 
he received a Letter of Counseling for failing to keep his room 
in a neat and orderly fashion; and he was convicted by Summary 
Court-Martial for stealing an XBOX 360 Live Points Card.  
 
The  applicant  acknowledged  his  commander’s  intent  to  discharge 
him, and his rights to counsel and to submit statements on his 
 
 

behalf.    He  consulted  counsel;  however,  he  declined  to  submit 
matters.   
 
On  10  November  2008,  the  staff  judge  advocate  found  the 
discharge  legally  sufficient.    On  18  November  2008,  the 
commander approved the applicant’s discharge.  He was separated 
on 20 November 2008 with a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge.    His  narrative  reason  for  separation  was  listed  as 
misconduct  and  his  RE  code  was  listed  as  2B.    He  was  credited 
with 2 years, 4 months and 3 days of active duty service.  
 
On 5 April 2011, the Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the 
applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOS  recommends  denial.    AFI  36-3208  states  that  airmen 
are  subject  to  separation  for  misconduct  that  disrupts  order, 
discipline  or  morale  within  the  military  community.    As 
reflected  in  the  applicant’s  discharge  package,  the  applicant 
showed  disregard  for  military  standards  and  good  order  and 
discipline.  Despite the unit’s best efforts, the applicant did 
not respond to the counseling he received.  Accordingly, a basis 
existed to support the applicant’s separation. 
 
The  discharge  was  consistent  with  procedural  and  substantive 
requirements  of  the  discharge  instruction  and  within  the 
discretion of the discharge authority.  There is no evidence of 
an error or injustice in the applicants discharge. 
 
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOA  recommends  denial.    The  applicant’s  RE  code,  2B,  is 
required  per  AFI  36-2606,  Reenlistments  in  the  USAF,  based  on 
his  involuntary  discharge  with  general  (under  honorable 
conditions)  character  of  service.    The  applicant  provides  no 
proof of an error or injustice regarding 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 30 May 2012, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit  E).    As  of  this  date,  this  office  has  received  no 
response. 
 
 
________________________________________________________________ 

 

2 

 
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; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that  occurred  during  the  discharge  process.    Based  on  the 
available  evidence  of  record,  it  appears  the  discharge  was 
consistent  with  the  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge 
regulation  and  within  the  commander's  discretionary  authority.  
The  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence,  which  would  lead  us  to 
believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the 
provisions  of  the  governing  regulation,  or  unduly  harsh.  
Additionally, we found no error or injustice with regard to the 
applicant’s RE code.  In the interest of justice, we considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, there was no 
evidence submitted to compel us to recommend granting the relief 
sought on that basis.   Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis upon which 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-2012-00829 in Executive Session on 31 July 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  BCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00829 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 11.  
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 23 Apr 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 May 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 12.                         

   

  

 

 

3