RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01090
			INDEX CODE:  100.00

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He requested to be discharged after failing his Career Development Course (CDC).  He was not discharged because of the failure.  Two years later, he was informed the 3A031 CDC was being rewritten due to mistakes with it.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 Jun 94, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 18 Oct 96, the applicant was notified by the commander that she was recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force for Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure to Progress In On-the-Job Training.  The reasons for this action were as follows:

		a.	On or about 19 Jul 96, he failed to pass his CDC.

		b.	On or about 28 Aug 96, he failed to pass his CDC for the second time.

On 24 Oct 96, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found that the applicant’s file was legally sufficient subject to proper medical clearance.  The applicant acknowledged that military legal counsel had been made available to him and consulted the Area Defense Counsel.  He did not submit statements for consideration.  Based on applicant’s failure in his CDC’s and no record of misconduct, the SJA recommended that the applicant be separated from the Air Force with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 7 Nov 96, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36‑3208 (Unsatisfactory Performance) in the grade of airman first class with an honorable discharge and an RE code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.”  He was credited with 2 years, 4 months, and 23 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Assistant Noncommissioned Officer-in-Charge (NCOIC), Separation Procedures Section (AFPC/DPPRS), reviewed this application and indicated that, based upon the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at that time.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  DPPRS recommends his records remain the same and his request be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Assistant Chief, Skills Management Branch (AFPC/DPPAE), also reviewed this application and indicated that the RE code of 2C is correct.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 29 Jun 01 for review and response.  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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his RE code should be changed.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 2 August 2001, under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 01, w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Jun 01.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 Jun 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 01.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair