RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02996
				 COUNSEL:  NONE
	 			 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  His Reentry (RE) code “2B” which denotes “Discharged Under 
General or Under Other than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC)” be 
changed to “1J” which denotes “Eligible to Reenlist but Elected 
to Separate.”

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility Data Display (REDD) report shows 
his RE code is “1J” instead of “2B.”  Since “1J” is a 
reenlistment eligible RE code, he would like his discharge 
upgraded.  

In support of his requests, the applicant provides a copy of his 
REDD Report.  

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

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 Oct 2002, the applicant entered active duty.

On 20 May 2003, the applicant’s commander notified him that he 
was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for minor 
disciplinary infractions.  The specific reasons for his actions 
were he was found in possession of tobacco while in phase I of 
technical training, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for 
smoking during the duty day while in uniform, failure to perform 
Charge of Quarters (CQ) duties, a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for 
dereliction in the performance of his duties by being in his 
dormitory room instead of performing assigned details, a LOR for 
leaving the area in civilian clothes while in phase I, a LOR for 
driving a privately owned vehicle while in phase I and a LOR for 
assaulting a fellow airman by stabbing him repeatedly with a 
pen.  
On 20 May 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter 
of notification, waived his right to consult counsel and 
declined to submit statements in his own behalf.  

On 22 May 2003, the staff judge advocate found the case legally 
sufficient to support the basis for separation.  

The discharge authority approved the recommendation.  

On 30 May 2003, he was discharged with service characterized as 
general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for 
separation of “Misconduct.”

He served on active duty for 7 months and 16 days.  

On 28 Oct 2008, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied the 
applicant’s requests to upgrade his discharge, change his 
narrative reason for separation and RE code.  The DRB concluded 
that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within 
the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant 
was provided full administrative due process.

On 4 Mar 2014, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to his activities 
since leaving the service.  As of this date, this office has not 
received a response (Exhibit F).     

________________________________________________________________ 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
upgrade his discharge to honorable.  Based on the documentation 
on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the 
discharge to include his character of service was consistent 
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the 
discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence 
of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge 
processing.  The commander stated before recommending the 
discharge that every effort was made by his supervision to 
rehabilitate him.  However, the applicant demonstrated a lack of 
respect for authority and a total disregard for policies and 
procedures constantly throughout his military career. 

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.   

DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his 
RE code.  RE code “2B” is required In Accordance With (IAW) Air 
Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, 
based on his involuntary discharge with a general (under 
honorable conditions) character of service.  The applicant does 
not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to 
his RE code.  He points to his REDD report used by recruiters 
showing “1J” as his RE code; however, his DD Form 214 is the 
official source document and reflects the applicant’s correct RE 
code of “2B.”  

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 Nov 2013, the copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  In the interest of justice we considered 
upgrading the characterization of the applicant’s discharge 
based on clemency; however, after considering his overall record 
of service and the lack of post-service documentation, we are 
not persuaded that an upgrade on this basis is warranted.  
Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend 
granting the relief sought.

____________________________________________________________ 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
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-
2013-02996 in Executive Session on 15 Apr 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

     , Panel Chair
     , Member
     , Member 

The following documentary evidence  was considered: 

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 2013, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 30 Aug 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 15 Oct 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Nov 2013.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Mar 2014, w/atch.




 
                                   Panel Chair