RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00444
		INDEX CODE 100.06
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow her enlistment in the Armed Forces.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to her discharge, she was not performing well on her Career Development Course (CDC) due to the birth of her child while a single parent, and given her immaturity at the time, she requested separation.

The applicant states that she is now ready, prepared, and stable enough to adjust to military life.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 January 1997 for a period of four years, at the age of 19.

The applicant was notified by her commander on 7 August 1998, of his intent to recommend her for administrative discharge for unsatisfactory performance - failure to progress in on-the-job training (OJT).  Specifically, for her second failure to achieve a minimum passing score of 65 percent on her CDC end of course test.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and waived her right to consult counsel.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 18 August 1998 under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Unsatisfactory Performance) and was issued an RE code of 4I (Serving on Control Roster).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that based on the documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Although the applicant states that she requested discharge, there is no letter from the applicant requesting a discharge.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  She provided no facts warranting an upgrade of her discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states that the applicant was separated after serving 1 year and 7 months of active service and that the RE code of 4I (Serving on the Control Roster) is correct.

The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 26 April 2002 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 error or injustice to warrant upgrading her RE Code. In this respect, we note that the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force Regulation in effect at the time of her separation and she was afforded all the rights to which entitled. Furthermore, she provides no evidence that her separation was inappropriate.  There being insufficient evidence to the contrary, 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 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 02-00444 in Executive Session on 30 May 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Feb 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 8 Apr 02.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.