RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05748
COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reentry (RE) code of 3K (Secretarial Authority) be changed
to a 1 RE code series that would allow him to reenlist.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) unanimously
determined his general discharge was too harsh and he should
have been given the opportunity to rehabilitate. The 3K code
requires a waiver which is not being granted. His discharge was
inequitable and unjust.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 July 2008.
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
are as follows:
a. On or about 10 May 2009, the applicant did not report
for duty and was disorderly by throwing beer bottles off of the
fourth floor balcony. For this misconduct, he received non-
judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ).
b. On or about 28 June 2010, the applicant reported for
work intoxicated. For this misconduct, he received non-judicial
punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ).
The applicant was advised of his rights in this matter and after
consulting with counsel he elected to waive his right to submit
a statement on his own behalf. In a legal review of the case
file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient
and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred
with the recommendation and directed the applicant be
discharged. The applicant was discharged on 24 November 2010
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He
served 2 years and 4 months and 17 days on active duty and
credited with 2 years and 11 days of foreign service.
On 31 July 2012, the AFDRB considered and approved the
applicants request that his general (under honorable
conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable, narrative
reason for separation (Misconduct Minor Disciplinary
Infractions) and reentry (RE) code of 2C be changed. The board
concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was
within the discretion of the discharge authority and the
applicant was provided full administrative due process.
However, in view of the foregoing findings, the board concluded
that the overall quality of the applicants service was more
accurately reflected by an honorable discharge, the narrative
reason for separation was more accurately described as
Secretarial Authority, and the RE code changed to 3K. The
applicants record was changed accordingly.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant wants
a RE code 1 series, however, AFI 36-2606, chapter 3, states not
to separate members in the RE code 1 series except for lJ -
Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation. (All Airmen
selected under the SRP and elect separation are given RE code
IJ.). The applicant should not be awarded a RE code lJ as his
commander recommended him for separation which is in line with
being denied reenlistment by his commander under the Selective
Reenlistment Program (SRP). The applicant had two Article 15s
in a 15 month period of his 2 year and 4 month career. It would
not be equitable to give the applicant the same RE code that
members receive who serve at least 75 percent of their first
enlistment, are meeting standards, and are selected for
reenlistment by their commander.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA 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 12 September 2014 for review and comment within
30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been
received by this office.
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 an error or an injustice. 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
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the
existence of an error or injustice. 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 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-2013-05748 in Executive Session on 28 October 2014,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-05748 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 October 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 11 February 2014.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 September 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02629
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02629 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2C (Entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to a 1 RE code series that would allow him to reenlist. However, HAF/A1P is postured to reevaluate those Airmen who were affected by entry level separation for failing academically between fiscal years...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05227
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/JA recommends the applicants request be approved and that his re-entry (RE) code be updated once the lost time is removed from his records. At the same time, the applicant requested that his lost time be re-calculated; however, as the commander non-concurred with his request, the lost...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00657
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00657 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reentry (RE) code of 2X, which denotes "1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the selective reenlistment program (SRP)," be changed to 3K, which denotes Reserved for Use by AFPC or AFBCMR, to...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00157
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00157 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 2X, which denotes "First Term, Second Term, or Career Airman nonselected for reenlistment be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard (ANG). According to AF Form 418, dated 8 May 2013, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not recommending him...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02475
The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B. He has never done any of the actions he was accused of by the three airmen. Moreover, he has not provided substantial evidence that but for the Article 15 he would have been selected for reenlistment.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03119
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant did not receive a CJR and was not eligible to reenlist and was released from active duty after serving his initial four year enlistment. According to AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04281
On 28 Sep 12, he was discharged with a RE code of 2C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicants request to change his RE code to the 1# series. On 25 Sep 12, the 37th Training Group Commander (37 TRG) directed he be discharged with an ELS for reluctance to make the effort necessary to meet Air Force standards of conduct and duty performance. AFI 36-2606, chapter 5 states not to separate airmen in the RE code 1# series except RE code 1J which denotes...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02717
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded his service characterization to honorable, but it was not reflected on his RE code, which he needs changed to enter the Air National Guard (ANG). The applicant has not provided any facts to warrant a change to his discharge or RE code. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, not dated.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04610
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04610 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) code of 3K Reserved for Use by AFPC or AFBCMR be changed to 1J Eligible to Reenlist Elected Separation or Discharge. His separation date was 22 July 2009 and there was not enough time, between the date of the remitted...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00521
On 21 Jun 11, the applicant’s commander notified her of his intent to recommend her discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance, specifically failure to progress in required military training. First, the RE code the applicant requests, R1, does not exist. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...