RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05443
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His type of discharge be changed to an uncharacterized form 
of entry-level separation.

2.  The words, “Entry-Level Performance and Conduct” Be removed 
from block 28 of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not a conduct problem. While in the service, he was 
emotional due to family stress.  He was not a discipline 
problem.  He was also the victim of whistle-blower retaliation.  
When he called the military police on a fellow trainee, he was 
threatened and intimidated by this trainee.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he provides a personal 
statement, letters of support, a copy of his Bachelor of Arts 
Degree in Public Administration, and a copy of his DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 March 1998.

The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to 
recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208.  The specific reasons 
follow:

     a.  On 10 June 1998, the applicant failed to report for a 
counseling session as ordered.  On 11 June 1998, he failed 
inspection and he showed up for his counseling session in a 
uniform which was out of standards.  When ordered to iron his 
uniform, he failed to properly follow directions and to report 
back as ordered.  He was counseled concerning his substandard 
performance.

     b.  On 2 July 1998, the applicant was disrespectful and 
failed to follow guidelines concerning the use of an intercom.  
For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

     c.  On 7 July 1998, the applicant was evaluated by the 
Chief of Mental Health Services.  He was diagnosed with an 
Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, as 
outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 
Disorders.  His disorder was so severe that his ability to 
function effectively in the military environment was 
significantly impaired, as demonstrated by his lack of effort to 
meet military standards.  He also expressed a desire to leave 
the military.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged 
receipt of the notification.  After consulting with counsel the 
applicant waived his right to submit a statement on his own 
behalf.

The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and 
directed discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 4 August 
1998 with an uncharacterized, entry-level separation.  He served 
5 months on active duty.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states the applicant’s 
service characterization, narrative reason for separation and 
separation code is [sic] correct as reflected on his DD Form 
214.  

Airmen are given entry level separation/uncharacterized service 
characterization when separation is initiated in the first 
180 days continuous active service.  The Department of Defense 
(DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days 
continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and 
the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, 
the uncharacterized character of service on his DD Form 214 is 
correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge to include the service characterization 
was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence 
that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his 
discharge warranting a change to his reentry code or character 
of service.




The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 24 February 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit D). 

On 19 August 2013, a request for information pertaining to his 
post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for 
review and response within 15 days (Exhibit E).   

The applicant states he is seeking clemency regarding his 
appeal.

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 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 an 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 narrative reason for separation was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation.  We note the applicant’s 
request for clemency, however, there was not sufficient evidence 
submitted to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought 
on that basis in the interest of justice.  Based on the above 
comments, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  

________________________________________________________________
_



THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-05443 in Executive Session on 12 September 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 November 2012, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 February 2013.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 February 2013.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 August 2013.
  Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 September 2013, 
w/atchs.




4


3