RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03500

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His reentry (RE) code be changed to 3A to allow him to reenter the military.

2.  He be awarded the following decorations:

	a.  Basic Military Training (BMT) Honor Graduate.

	b.  Small Arms Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR).

3.  His current address and the spelling of his mother’s name, reflected in Block 9 of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected. 


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to the false allegations made against him, not being allowed to reenlist in another branch of service would be an injustice.  In addition, his DD Form 214 omitted important decorations and there are spelling errors in his address and in his mother’s name.  His street name is “Boxwood Lane,” and his mother’s name is “Cloetta.”  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 14 May 13.

On 31 Jul 14, the applicant’s commander notified him he was recommending him for discharge due to a pattern of misconduct which was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The reasons for taking this action were:

	a.  On or about 11 May 14, the applicant consumed an alcohol beverage while under 21 years of age.  For this he received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  

	b.  On or about 30 May 14, the applicant failed to report to the designated duty location at the designated time.  In addition, he intentionally and wrongfully influenced several members of his flight to fail to report to a mandatory physical training formation.  For this, he was counseled and received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).   

	c.  On or about 30 May 14, the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  For this, he received further punishment that was documented in a Record of Proceedings of Vacation of Suspended Non-judicial Punishment.  

	d.  On or about 25 Jun 14, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from falling asleep during duty hours.  In addition, on or about 11 Oct 13, he again consumed an alcoholic beverage while under 21 years of age and knowingly made a visual recording of the private area of a fellow female airman, which was done without her consent and under circumstances in which she had a reasonable expectation to privacy.  For this he received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ.  

	e.  On 3 Jul 14, an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was created on the applicant, and his LOR filed in the UIF. 

On 6 Aug 14, the applicant’s commander recommended him for discharge.  The discharge case was found to be legally sufficient.  

On 13 Aug 14, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, without probation or rehabilitation, due to a pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

On 14 Aug 14, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct,” and was credited with one year, three months, and two days of active service.   

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 EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning his separation program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation, or character of service.  The applicant was given ample opportunity to correct his behavior, but repeatedly committed acts of misconduct.  AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, states that a general discharge service characterization is warranted when “significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance outweigh the positive aspects of the airman’s military record.”  The discharge authority concluded the negative aspects of his conduct outweighed the positive aspects, therefore, the discharge, to include the SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service were in accordance with the governing guidance and within the discretionary authority of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence to establish that there was an error or injustice.  

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 RE code.  The applicant contends he was told during out processing he would be able to enter another branch of service.  Therefore, he requests his RE code be changed to 3A to allow reentry into the military. However, he provides no documentation to establish that his current RE code of 2B [Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge] is an error or injustice.  The RE code of 2B is required in accordance with    AFI 32-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, based upon his involuntary discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service.  The applicant’s record is correct, and does not warrant a change.  

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

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning the applicant’s request for BMT Honor Graduate status or the SAEMR.  The United States Air Force Basic Training Honor Graduate Ribbon was authorized on 3 Apr 76 to be awarded to the honor graduates who, after 29 Jul 76, demonstrate excellence in all phases of academic and military training.  The SEAMR is awarded to all United States Air Force members who, after 1 Jan 63, qualify as “expert” in small-arms marksmanship with either the M-16 rifle or the issue handgun.  A thorough review of the applicant’s official military personnel record revealed no documentation which establishes the applicant was awarded either the Basic Military Training Honor Graduate Ribbon or the SAEMR.  Recommend denying the requests for both decorations.  

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

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice concerning spelling errors in Block 19 on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  The source of the spelling of the information entered into Block 19 of the DD Form 214 is the Veteran themselves.  The sole purpose of including a name and address in Block 19b of the DD Form 214 is to provide the Veteran a copy of the DD Form 214 in the event the primary address in Block 19a proves faulty.  Since the applicant received his DD Form 214, the information in Block 19 is now void and without need of correction. 

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G).  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-2014-03500 in Executive Session on 10 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 12 Sep 14.
      Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 14 Oct 14.
      Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 5 Dec 14.
      Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 16 Dec 14.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Feb 15.