RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02298

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. 

2.  His reenlistment code (RE) code of “2B” be changed to make him eligible to reenlist in the Army. 

3.  His grade of Airman First Class (E-3) be reinstated.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was based on prejudices held against him by his superiors.  Certain elements in his office fabricated situations and invented events for their own personal gain and amusement to see to it he was removed from the Air Force.  He loved his country, and would like to reenlist in the Army where his skills and interests would be put to better use. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 2 Feb 10.

On 12 Oct 11, the applicant received a referral enlisted performance report (EPR) covering the period 2 Feb 10 through 1 Oct 11 with an overall performance assessment in Block V of “2” (Needs Improvement).  

On 23 Nov 11, the applicant’s commander did not select him for reenlistment, stating he “received 3 Letters of Counseling between Apr 11 and Aug 11 for being late for duty and for dress and appearance violations.  Received a Letter of Reprimand on 7 Jun 11 for being late for duty.  Also received an Article 15 on 8 Sep 11 for disorderly conduct and being late for duty.  He received suspended reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $450 per month for two months, restriction to base for 15 days, and a reprimand.”  The applicant did not appeal this decision.

On 4 Jan 12, the applicant’s commander notified him she was recommending him for discharge for minor disciplinary infractions.  The reasons for taking this action were:

	a.  On or about 29 Nov 11, he failed to go to a mandatory appointment at the prescribed time, and received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 2 Dec 11. 

	b.  On or about 18 Oct 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from sleeping during a meeting, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of Proceedings of Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 30 Nov 11. 

	c.  On or about 30 Aug 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully returned late from lunch and refused to perform tasks assigned to him, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 22 Sep 11.

	d.  On or about 11 Jul 11, he was disorderly, which was misconduct of the nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, as evidenced by a Record of Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 22 Sep 11.

	e.  On or about 17 Aug 11, he violated a lawful general regulation by wearing a dirty uniform in violation of standards in accordance with AFI 36-2903, as evidenced by a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 22 Aug 11.  

	f. On or about 3 Jun 11, he failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty, as evidenced by an LOR, dated 7 Jun 11. 

	g.  On or about 25 Apr 11, he failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty, as evidenced by an LOC, dated 28 Apr 11.  

	h.  On or about 7 Apr 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to route corrections he made to an AF Form 3070 through his chain of command, as evidenced by an LOC, dated 25 Apr 11.   

On 11 Jan 12, the applicant’s commander recommended him for discharge for misconduct, specifically minor disciplinary infractions.  The applicant consulted counsel, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The discharge case was determined to be legally sufficient.

On 30 Jan 12, the applicant’s commander directed he be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge for minor disciplinary infractions, without being offered probation or rehabilitation.  

On 26 Jan 12, the applicant was furnished an General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (Minor Infractions),” an RE code of “2B,” and was credited with 1 year, 11 months, and 25 days of active service.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflected the applicant’s grade as “A1C” and pay grade as “E3.”

On 9 Feb 15, AFPC/DPSOR furnished the applicant a DD Form 215, Correction to the DD Form 214, dated 9 Feb 15, changing his grade on his DD Form 214 from “A1C” to AMN,” and his pay grade from “E3” to “E2.”

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, E, and F.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning the applicant’s separation program designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation, or character of service.  In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, a General discharge is appropriate when “significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the airman’s military record.”  The applicant’s commander determined that due to his low regard for the rules, regulations, and integrity, separation was the correct course of action.  The separation was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Therefore, the applicant’s SPD code, and narrative reason for separation, and character service are correct.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning his reentry (RE) code.  The applicant does not provide any documentation indicating his RE code is incorrect.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning the applicant’s rank.  Based upon the fact the applicant received nonjudicial punishment and was permanently reduced in grade to Airman, said grade is properly reflected on his DD Form 214. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning the applicant’s nonjudicial punishment.  Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) is authorized by Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and permits commanders to dispose of certain offenses without trial by court-martial unless the service member objects.  Service member must first be notified by their commanders of the nature of the charged offenses, the evidence supporting the offenses, and the commander’s intent to impose the punishment.  The member may consult with a defense counsel to determine whether to accept the NJP or demand trial by court-martial.  Accepting the proceedings is simply a choice of forum; it is not an admission of guilt.  NJP is also not, when imposed, a criminal conviction.  

AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial Punishment, states “if a reduction in grade is suspended, but the suspension is later vacated, the DOR in the grade to which the member is reduced is the date the original reduction was imposed by the commander.”  The applicant’s DOR is in accordance with AFI 51-202.  The applicant only submitted two character statements from 2012, and did not provide the NJP or the evidence in the case.  The commander’s decision was reviewed on multiple levels for legal sufficiency and it was determined the commander’s decision was legal and the punishment decisions were within the limits of the commander’s authority and discretion.  Recommend denial. 

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit F.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Apr 15 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 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 (OPR) and adopt their 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.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.


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-2014-02298 in Executive Session on 14 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 30 Dec 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 2 Feb 15.
      Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 Feb 15.
      Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 17 Mar 15.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 15.