RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03589

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be amended as follows:  

	His separation code “JBK” which denotes “Completion of 
Required Active Service” be changed.  

	His Reentry (RE) code “2X” which denotes “First-term, second-
term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment 
under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)” be changed.  

	He be awarded any awards and decorations he may be entitled.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation and RE codes are unjust because of an injury he 
sustained while deployed to Afghanistan.

He was separated without being able to sign his DD Form 214.

The applicant provides no rationale as to why the Board should 
consider it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely 
application.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Aug 05.

According to his AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program 
Consideration, dated 30 Mar 10, he was not selected for 
reenlistment by his commander.  The reasons for the non-selection 
include Letters of Counseling (LOCs) and Letters of Reprimand 
(LORs) for missing mandatory appointments, not completing an 
assigned task, uniform not within standards and not completing 
leave paperwork prior to leaving the area for 14 days.  He was 
also non-recommended for promotion and received an “average” 
rating on his 8 Apr 08 Enlisted Performance Report (EPR). 

Per AF 3070A, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings (AB 
thru TSgt), dated 1 Jun 10, he received an Article 15, in 
violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 
128, Assault, and was reduced to the grade of Airman First Class 
(A1C, E-3) with Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 Jun 10.  

He was honorably discharged on 30 Jun 10 with a narrative reason 
for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service” and RE 
code “2X.”   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PS recommends denial as he has not provided any supporting 
documentation to indicate any error or injustice occurred. 

A complete copy of the A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request that his 
separation code be changed.  Based on the documentation on file in 
the master personnel records, the discharge to include his 
separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not 
provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the 
discharge processing.  

In respect to the applicant’s contention that he was not provided 
an opportunity to sign his DD Form 214.  In Accordance With (IAW) 
AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, the applicant’s signature on 
the DD Form 214 is not required and the separations’ office is 
authorized to indicate “member not available to sign” if the 
member is not physically present to sign the document.  Therefore, 
Item 21 of the DD Form 214 is correct and IAW with AF 
instructions.

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

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a 
change of RE code.  AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states 
commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection 
authority.  The SRP considers the members EPR ratings, unfavorable 
information from any substantiated source, the airman’s 
willingness to comply with Air Force standards or the airman’s 
ability to meet required training and duty performance levels.  It 
is clear his commander had justification for denial of 
reenlistment as there are four LOCs and four LORs listed in the 
remarks section of his AF IMT 418 dated 30 Mar 10.  Additionally, 
the applicant received an Article 15 on 1 Jun 10. 

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

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s requests for any 
awards and decorations.  DPSID was unable to locate any official 
documentation, nor did the applicant provide any, to verify any 
award or decoration for which he is eligible but did not receive.  
To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by 
DODM 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, Secretary 
of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff.

A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit F.  


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He provides copies of medical record notes indicating that he was 
treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and major 
depression.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H.  


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 to warrant 
changing his separation and RE codes.  We took notice of the 
applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; 
however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that 
occurred in the discharge processing.  Based on the available 
evidence of record, it appears the applicant’ discharge to include 
his separation and RE codes was consistent with the substantive 
requirements of the discharge authority.  The medical records 
provided by the applicant are noted; however, he has not provided 
substantial evidence which would lead us to believe his separation 
and RE codes are contrary to the provisions of the governing 
regulation.  With respect to the applicant’s request for awards 
and decorations, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of 
DPSID and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof 
that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view of 
this and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 



 

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-2014-03589 in Executive Session on under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 14.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1PS, dated 30 Oct 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Nov 14.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 22 Dec 14.  
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 9 Feb 15.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Mar 15.
	Exhibit H.  Medical Notes, Applicant, undated.