RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01397
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
______
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reentry (RE) code of 2C (“Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service”) be changed to allow his reenlistment.
______
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was young and made a few mistakes during his tenure in the Air Force, but has matured and can be a productive member of the Armed Forces.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
______
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 15 Aug 06 for a term of four years. On 11 Dec 06, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force for entry-level performance or conduct for minor disciplinary infractions. The commander recommended he be given an entry level separation.
On 21 Dec 06, he was separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Entry-Level Performance and Conduct, with an uncharacterized discharge. He served a total of four months and seven days active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D.
______
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the service characterization, was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of his discharge warranting a change to his RE code or character of service.
The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states that RE code 2C is required based on the entry-level separation with uncharacterized service per the governing instruction.
The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
______
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 5 Nov 10, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
______
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 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 error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
______
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC-2010-01397 inExecutive Session on 11 Jan 11, under the provisions of AFI36-2603:
Mr. ------, Panel Chair
Ms. ------, Member
Ms. ------, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 10.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 17 Sep 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 Oct 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 10.
------
Panel Chair
3