RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02335

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The nonjudicial punishments he received under Article 15 be 
removed from his record.

2.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (Separated 
with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge) be changed to “3K” (Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or 
the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies 
or is appropriate).

3.  His separation program designator (SPD) code of “JKN” 
(Misconduct – Minor Infractions) and narrative reason for 
separation be changed to “KFF” (Secretarial Authority).”

4.  He be awarded the Air Force Overseas Ribbon – Short Tour 
(AFOR-ST) (Administratively Resolved).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge was recently upgraded to honorable, for which he 
is very thankful.  The punishments that he received while on 
active duty were unfair and unduly harsh.  He is currently 
serving in the Army National Guard in the grade of E-4.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
1 Feb 06.

On 10 Sep 09, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend his discharge for Misconduct: minor 
disciplinary infractions.  The reason for the action included 
the following:

	a.  On or about 28 May 09, the applicant was derelict in 
the performance of his duties in that he left his vehicle 
without his assigned weapon while on post, for this incident 
charges were referred to a trial by summary court-martial, which 
resulted in a reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1).

	b.  On or about 2 Feb 09, the applicant showed disrespect 
towards a superior commissioned officer by failing to salute, 
for this he received a letter of reprimand (LOR), which was 
filed in his unfavorable information file (UIF).

	c.  On or about 3 May 07, the applicant failed to obey a 
lawful order by disclosing information in an ongoing 
investigation, for this he received a reduction to the grade of 
airman (E-2) suspended through 17 Jan 08, 20 days extra duty and 
a reprimand, which established his UIF.

On 10 Sep 09, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and his right to consult with legal counsel and submit 
statements on his own behalf.

On 18 Sep 09, the action was found to be legally sufficient and, 
on 23 Sep 09, the discharge authority concurred with the 
commander’s recommendation.

On 9 Oct 09, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge with a narrative reason for 
separation of “Misconduct,” an RE code 2B, and was credited with 
three years, eight months, and nine days of active service.   

On 6 Apr 12, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) denied the 
applicant’s requests to upgrade his discharge, change his 
narrative reason for separation and RE code.  The Board 
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 12 Dec 13, the applicant appeared before the DRB, with 
counsel.  The Board majority approved the applicant’s request to 
upgrade his service characterization from general to honorable; 
however, the change of reason and authority for discharge, and 
change of RE code were denied.

On 8 Aug 14, AFPC/DPSID directed the applicant’s DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 9 
Oct 09, be corrected to add the AFOR-ST and will 
administratively correct the record.

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




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the nonjudicial punishments (NJP) from his record, 
indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  
The applicant contends the action (the discharge for misconduct) 
was unfair and unduly harsh, but his demands lack objectivity.  
He entered the Air Force with greater pay and rank than his 
peers because he promised to serve six years; he barely made it 
past three.  The applicant had at least two different 
commanders, from entirely different installations, examine his 
behavior alongside his peers and both believed he warranted NJP.  
He was trained in the area of law enforcement, and all three of 
his offenses reflect his flagrant disregard for rules, orders, 
or requirements.  Both of his NJPs included reprimand language 
warning him of greater consequences unless he corrected his 
behavior, but he rejected the gravely serious admonitions.  A 
defense of youthful indiscretion escapes him because he was 
initially punished at 19 years old and his criminal behavior 
escalated later at 22 years old.  Moreover, his present request 
highlights his service in a hostile fire zone, yet downplays an 
offense of disrespecting a superior and a weapon-related 
dereliction of duty in the same combat-like environment.  The 
applicant was warned about following standards, he was provided 
due process, he was provided an opportunity to consult with 
counsel, and he was given the opportunity to prove himself to at 
least two commanders.  After carefully reviewing the record, no 
clear injustice, error or good cause has been found to reverse 
or otherwise change the commanders’ decisions with respect to 
the Article 15s or administrative discharge process.

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

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial as it pertains to the applicant’s 
request to change the SPD code, narrative reason for separation, 
and character of service.  The applicant received a summary 
court-martial and two Article 15s for misconduct.  It was 
determined by his commander that the applicant was afforded 
opportunities to overcome his deficiencies.  His commander 
concluded that the applicant failed to correct his behavior and 
refused to comply with Air Force standards and policies.  The 
commander further concluded that the applicant demonstrated that 
he lacked the self-discipline to meet and maintain Air Force 
standards.  Based on a review of the record, the discharge to 
include the SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and 
character of service, was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.

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

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his RE code to 3K.  The applicant received a RE code of 
2B (Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-
conditions (UOTHC) discharge), based on his general discharge.  
On 20 Mar 14, a new DD Form 214 was issued with an honorable 
character of service and the applicant’s RE code was erroneously 
listed as 2B.  Per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, the 
RE code should have been automatically changed to “2C” 
(Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry 
level separation without characterization of service), based on 
his character of service being changed to honorable.  The RE 
code 2B is not compatible with an honorable character of 
service.  AFPC/DPSOY will publish and provide the applicant with 
a corrected copy of his DD Form 214 to reflect the correct RE 
code of 2C, unless otherwise directed by the Board.  

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates that his RE code and narrative reason 
should be changed.  He is pursuing his bachelor’s degree and 
will graduate in 2016.  He would like all negative comments 
removed from his DD 214 to prevent any hindrances for future 
employment.  He plans to submit a waiver to attend Officer 
Candidate School and a negative narrative reason would likely 
result in a denial.  In an additional, undated rebuttal, the 
applicant requests update of his foreign service credit, the 
longevity service award, and a new honorable discharge 
certificate for framing purposes.


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 AFLOA/JAJM and AFPC/DPSOR and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error of injustice with respect to his 
Article 15 punishments and the SPD code issued in conjunction 
with his involuntary separation.  While the applicant has been 
successful in getting his character of service upgraded from 
general (under honorable conditions) to honorable, he has 
presented no evidence to undermine the fact that his misconduct 
formed the legitimate basis for his discharge.  Therefore, as 
the applicant has presented no evidence to indicate that the 
commander abused his discretionary authority in imposing 
punishment under Article 15 or recommending his subsequent 
administrative discharge based on the applicant’s misconduct, we 
find no basis to recommend the applicant’s records be now 
corrected to reflect that his SPD and RE now be changed to codes 
that would allow him to re-enlist.  We note the Air Force OPR 
has determined the applicant’s eligibility for the Air Force 
Overseas Ribbon – Short Tour and will correct his records 
administratively.  As for the applicant’s additional requests in 
response to the advisory opinions for foreign service credit and 
the Air Force Longevity Service Award (AFLSA), in view of the 
fact that these constitute new requests, the applicant should 
submit a new DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military 
Records, describing the further corrections he wants made to his 
records, along with documentary evidence in support of said 
requests.  As for his request to be reissued a DD Form 256, 
Honorable Discharge Certificate, this matter will be resolved 
administratively after verification of the applicant’s record by 
AFPC/DPSOR.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting relief beyond 
that rendered administratively.


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-2014-02335 in Executive Session on 22 Apr 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 18 Sep 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 24 Sep 14.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 30 Oct 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Nov 14 .