RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05056 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be awarded the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon 
(SAEMR). 

 

2. His General Under Honorable Discharge be upgraded to 
Honorable. 

 

3. His Reenlistment (RE) code be changed from 2B (discharged 
under General or Other-Than-Honorable conditions) to 
2C (involuntary separation with Honorable discharge). 

 

4. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty, be updated to reflect the “excellent” rating his 
squadron received on their Inspector General (IG). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The administration office which typed his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, must have 
inadvertently omitted his SAEMR and his squadron’s excellent IG 
rating. As for his discharge, not completing his full term of 
enlistment is not justification for denying him an Honorable 
discharge. He refutes his Letters of Reprimand (LORs) dated 
7 Nov 84, 16 Nov 84, and 19 Dec 84, and his Article 15, dated 
23 May 85. 

 

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

 

_________________ ______________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 3 Apr 84. 

 


On 7 Nov 84, 16 Nov 84, and 19 Dec 84, the applicant received 
LORs for failure to report to his appointed place of duty, 
leaving his place of duty, and failure to go to his appointed 
place of duty, respectively. 

 

On 23 May 85, the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to go at the 
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty in violation of 
Article 86 of the UCMJ. For this, he was reduced in grade to 
airman basic, forfeited one half of one month’s pay per month 
for two months, received 30 days in correctional custody and 45 
days of extra duty. 

 

On 3 Jun 85, the applicant’s commander notified him he was 
recommending him for discharge for misconduct; specifically, a 
pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. 
The applicant consulted with legal counsel and waived his right 
to submit statements in his own behalf. 

 

On 14 Jun 85, the applicant was discharged from active duty with 
a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with a 
Narrative Reason for Separation of ”Misconduct—Pattern Conduct 
Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline,” an RE code of “2B,” 
and was credited with 1 year, 2 months, and 11 days of active 
service. 

 

On 29 May 12, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit E). 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the 
SAEMR, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an 
injustice. The applicant contends he qualified with the M-16 
rifle and .38 caliber handgun and the SAEMR is missing from his 
records. The SAEMR is awarded to all US Air Force members who 
qualify as “expert” in small arms marksmanship with either the 
M-16 or issue handgun. A thorough review of the applicant’s 
official military personnel records and the documentation he 
submitted with his application reveals no information which 
verifies the applicant qualifies for the SAEMR. There is 
insufficient documentation to support the applicant’s request. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID 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 21 Jan 13 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 with respect to 
the applicant’s request for the small arms expert marksman 
ribbon (SAEMR). We took notice of the applicant's complete 
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim 
of an error of injustice regarding award of the SAEMR. 
Concerning the applicant’s request to upgrade his General 
discharge to Honorable, 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, unduly harsh, or disproportionate 
to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we 
considered upgrading the discharge on the basis of clemency; 
however, in the absence of any evidence related to his 
activities since leaving the service, we find no basis for us to 
recommend upgrading the characterization of his discharge on 
that basis. Further, concerning the applicant’s request for 
updating his DD Form 214 with the results of his squadron’s IG 
inspection, IG inspection results are not authorized to be 
placed on the DD Form 214. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to 
grant 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-2012-05056 in Executive Session on 30 Jul 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 3 Jan 13. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jan 13. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 May 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair