Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02586
Original file (BC 2014 02586.txt) Auto-classification: Denied


RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-02586

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reentry code of “4H” which denotes “Serving suspended 
punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ),” be changed to allow him to reenlist.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the RE code to be in error.  The Article 15 he 
received was not warranted due to his case being dismissed 
without prejudice.  Since the Article, he has grown mentally and 
has gained maturity and knowledge.  He is not the same young man 
he was during his first enlistment.  He is involved in his 
community and recently elected as an executive officer at his 
local American Legion.  He is also a member of the American 
Legion Honor Guard.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 
7 May 2002.

The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 
15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 23 May 
2005, for assault by brandishing and pointing an unloaded 
firearm at someone, in violation of the UCMJ, Article 128.  His 
punishment consisted of a reduction in grade from senior airman 
to airman first class, a forfeiture of $792 pay per month for 
two months, suspended through 2 December 2005, after which time 
it will be remitted without further action, unless sooner 
vacated; a 60 day restriction to the limits of Malmstrom Air 
Force Base and a reprimand.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 9 May 2006 in the 
grade of airman first class under the provisions of AFI 36-
3208 (Completion of Required Active Service).  He served 4 years 
on active duty.

On 6 August 2014, AFPC/DPSOAE advised the applicant that his RE 
code is in error as his suspended punishment under Article 
15 expired on 2 December 2005, which was before his 9 May 
2006 separation date.  Since his commander did not select or 
non-select him under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP), 
his RE code is being corrected to 3K (Reserved for use by HQ 
AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other code applies or is 
appropriate.”  This code is waiverable for reentry in the 
military if he is otherwise eligible and if the component he is 
trying to join desires to waive the code.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends disapproval in regards to removing the 
Article 15 from his personnel records.  JAJM states the 
applicant believes that because his case was dismissed without 
prejudice in the local court system, the NJP should also be 
removed from his record.  Accepting NJP is a process completely 
separate from any judicial proceedings in a civilian court.  
Just because a civilian court chooses not to move forward with 
the case does not mean there was not sufficient evidence to 
warrant NJP.

The application was not submitted in a timely manner (within 
three years), but the merits may be considered by the Board.  
The applicant may have realized his discharge paperwork had the 
wrong coding in 2013, but he knew he had the Article 15 on his 
permanent record when he separated from the military in 2006.  
The coding on his DD 214 has already been corrected by AFPC. 

The applicant had the opportunity to make his arguments to his 
commander and the appellate authority as part of the Article 
15 process.  The commander and the appellate authority were in 
the best position to hear such factual arguments.  Punishment 
decisions are within the discretion of the commander imposing 
punishment.  The commander should consider the unique facts of 
each case, the offense committed, and the individual being 
punished.  In this case, the commander exercised his discretion 
and there is no error or injustice that would warrant reversing 
the commander’s decision on upholding the NJP.

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.






APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 12 November 2014, a copy of the evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant for review and response 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 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 warranting a 
change to the applicant’s RE code to allow him to reenlist.  
AFPC/DPSOAE has confirmed that the “4H” RE code currently listed 
on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is erroneous – as his suspended 
punishment under Article 15 expired before his separation date.  
The applicant’s DD Form 214 will be administratively corrected 
to reflect “3K.”  Although the applicant requests a code that 
would allow for reenlistment, we believe that “3K,” – 
Secretarial Authority, is appropriate.  Although the “3K” RE 
code does not make the applicant immediately eligible for 
reenlistment, it can be waived by the military services.  
Therefore, other than the administrative correction cited above, 
we find no basis to recommend granting any additional 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-2014-02586 in Executive Session on 12 March 2015, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:




The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02586 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 June 2014, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 3 November 2014.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 November 2014.


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00339

    Original file (BC-2010-00339.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    JAJM states the applicant was not serving on a suspended punishment to the Article 15 on his date of separation of 21 January 2006. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code will be administratively changed to “3K.” This RE code is the most appropriate code at this time; however, he will still require a waiver to reenter the military. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02425

    Original file (BC 2014 02425.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02425 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. 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: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01982

    Original file (BC-2010-01982.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01982 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. On 30 July 2010, AFPC/DPSOE notified the applicant that a review of his record revealed that since he was serving under a suspended reduction in grade at the time of his separation, and, they found no documentation vacating the suspended...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02376

    Original file (BC-2002-02376.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02376 INDEX CODES: 100.06, 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 initiated on 6 Apr 98 and imposed on 23 Apr 98 be set aside and removed from his records. He asked four times about his rights regarding the base and state driving laws. Therefore,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02620

    Original file (BC 2013 02620.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to set aside his NJP, indicating the applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice. He was later informed that the commander had made his decision to impose...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01323

    Original file (BC-2012-01323.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends that the Board direct a change in the applicant’s RE code to 3K “Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment code applies or is appropriate.” DPSOA states the applicant received an Article 15 on 23 Dec 04, and was assigned an RE code of 4H based on serving a suspended punishment that expired 22 Jun 05. At the time of his separation he was not eligible to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01181

    Original file (BC-2011-01181.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01181 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his appeal. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02335

    Original file (BC 2014 02335.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. Therefore, as the applicant has presented no evidence to indicate that the commander abused his discretionary...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04852

    Original file (BC-2012-04852.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    According to copies of documents extracted from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS), by way of an AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, the applicant’s commander offered him nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings under Article 15 UCMJ, on 10 April 2006, for one specification of a violation of Article 134, Adultery. However, the Air Force does not recognize any time served after a member separates. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04112

    Original file (BC-2002-04112.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04112 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H be changed to allow eligibility to enlist in the Air National Guard. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). Sufficient relevant evidence has...