RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00056
		INDEX CODE:  110.00, 100.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

	   	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to allow eligibility to reenter the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was put into a school he was not qualified for.  It has been seven years since his separation and he feels he can now make better decisions.

In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) and DD Form 214.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 26 Apr 95 for a period of 4 years.  On 20 Oct 95, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for entry level performance or conduct.  The reason for this action was the applicant’s failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program.  He received an uncharacterized entry level separation on 26 Oct 95 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (entry level performance and conduct).  He had completed a total of 6 months and 1 day and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of separation.  He received an RE Code of 2C, which defined means "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service."
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS stated that the applicant failed nine progress checks and was given seven hours of individual assistance, with negative results.  Based upon the documentation in the file, DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  DPPRS indicated that airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The applicant’s uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with Department of Defense and Air Force instructions.  An entry-level/uncharacterized separation should not be viewed as negative and should not be confused with other types of separation.  The HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE stated that the applicant’s RE code of 2C is correct.  The HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 28 June 2002 for review and response.  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 concerning the applicant’s RE code.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction.  The RE code, which was issued at the time of applicant’s separation, accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust.  We, therefore, conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

4.	Notwithstanding the above, we find the narrative reason for the applicant’s entry level separation; i.e., “entry level performance and conduct,” to be inaccurate.  In our deliberations of this case, it appeared to us that the word “conduct” could be misconstrued to imply that his separation for academic deficiency was also due to misconduct.  While the applicant may have had problems progressing in the required technical training course, we have seen no evidence of misconduct.  Therefore, in order to correct an injustice of improperly labeling the applicant, his narrative reason for separation should be corrected to accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation.  In view of the foregoing, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct” from his narrative reason for separation.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct” from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued on 26 October 1995.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02‑00056 in Executive Session on 15 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Feb 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 Jun 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 02.