RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01938

  			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The following be changed on her DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty:

  Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JKN;”

  Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2B;” and

  General under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to 
Honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After carefully reviewing her military records, she found 
nothing that indicates misconduct.  She has a medal/ribbon for 
good conduct, positive evaluation records from supervisors and 
never lost rank or pay.  The request to her commander regarding 
the discharge was due to discussion about injury and permanent 
profile.  She was unable to change Military Occupation Specialty 
(MOS) because of the non-availability of positions. 

The board should find it in the interest of justice to review 
her untimely application because she is currently completing her 
Master’s Degree and entering a PhD program in forensic 
psychology.  The general discharge influences her ability to 
obtain a top-secret security clearance for a detective position.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 Aug 94, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 21 Oct 97, the applicant received a general, under honorable 
conditions discharge.  She was credited with 3 years, 1 month 
and 28 days of active service.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant did not file a timely 
petition.  It has been almost 17 years since the applicant’s 
separation and the length of time has allowed her record to be 
absent document.  Furthermore, the applicant did not explain the 
reason for filing late and for failing to file within the 3 
years of her discharge.  

There is no discharge documentation in the applicant’s record.  
Therefore, DPSOR must go with the presumption of regularity in 
this case.  Based on a presumption of regularity, the applicant 
was most likely notified by her commander that she was being 
recommended for discharge for misconduct (minor disciplinary 
infractions).  In addition, the commander would have informed 
the applicant of the type of discharge characterization being 
recommended to the discharge authority.  Furthermore, the 
commander would have provided a detailed explanation of the 
infractions committed by the applicant as reasons why he was 
recommending discharge.  

Based on the presumption of regularity, the applicant would have 
been required to acknowledge receipt of the notification of 
discharge and afforded the opportunity to consult with legal 
counsel and submit statements in her own behalf.  Based on the 
presumption of regularity, the base legal office would have 
reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support 
separation.  Based on the presumption of regularity, the base 
separations authority would have approved the discharge and 
directed the applicant be separated with an under honorable 
conditions (general) discharge.  Based on presumption of 
regularity, it would have been determined that the applicant 
would have been afforded the opportunity to overcome her 
deficiencies.  Her commander would have concluded that her 
failure to adjust her conduct despite rehabilitative 
opportunities showed that probation and rehabilitation did not 
work and that discharge was warranted.  

Based on AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
paragraph 1.18.2, a general discharge is appropriate when 
“significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or 
performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the airman’s 
military record.”  Based on the presumption of regularity, the 
discharge authority must have determined that the applicant’s 
misconduct outweighed the positive aspects of her military 
service.  Based on the presumption of regularity, the discharge 
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements 
of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of 
the discharge authority.    

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change her RE code.  The applicant’s contentions are about her 
discharge for misconduct as she states she never “acted in 
misconduct”.  DPSOA defers to the Office of Primary 
Responsibility (OPR) to validate her discharge processing.  Her 
RE code 2B is correct based on her involuntary discharge with a 
general character of service.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates the reason she did not request a change 
to her DD Form 214 within three years of separation is because 
she was not aware she could request a change and it is not 
something one is told during discharge.  The Board should note 
how current her performance reports were before her separation.

After reviewing the DD Form 214, she noticed the narrative 
reason for separation as misconduct.  She is not sure why the 
document states that because she was never in a position for any 
type of rehabilitation.  For two of the three year term, she was 
on a constant profile for knee issues which she received 10% 
disability.  

After her separation, she had no use for her DD Form 214 because 
she had a childcare business in Georgia.  During the 14 years 
after her separation, she went to college with the intent of 
eventually completing a PhD in forensic psychology.  In the 
course her Master’s Degree studies, she discovered certification 
requirements included the ability to obtain a top secret 
security clearance, which she would not be able to do without an 
honorable discharge.  

Per the letter she was sent in October, she requested a Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check and is still 
awaiting the response.  In Georgia, she was required by law to 
pass a local and federal background check, before certification.  
She never lost her certification and was consistently given an 
“A” rating.  She was even asked to go to other centers to 
provide business advice on running a daycare center.        

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.


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, to include her 
rebuttal of the Air Force advisories, 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.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 


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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01938 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jun 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 Jul 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 7 Nov 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Dec 14.