RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00703
		INDEX CODE:  112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) and separation codes be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like his RE code of “2C” changed to reenlist into another branch of the service.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a statement from his mother dated 26 March 2002.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 September 2001 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 17 December 2001, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for entry level performance or conduct.  The specific reason was as follows:

	You have failed to make satisfactory progress in a required training program.  Specifically, you were eliminated from the Security Forces technical training course for Weapons Failure after failing to qualify on the M-16 A2 Rifle after six attempts with scores of 20, 19, 18, 20, 17, and 11 - minimum passing is 25.  Prior to your disenrollment you were counseled concerning your weapons failure and received 4 hours Special Individualized Assistance.  Efforts to improve your performance have met with negative results.  As a result, you were disenrolled from the Security Forces technical training course on 7 December 2001.

On 18 December 2001, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with an Entry Level Separation.

On 19 December 2001, the applicant’s discharge was approved.

Applicant was discharged on 9 January 2002, in the grade of airman basic with an Entry Level Performance and Conduct discharge, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208.  He served a total of 3 months and 25 days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated that based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.

Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, his 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 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant separated 9 January 2002, after serving 3 months and 25 days active service.  The Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 June 2002, copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s RE code.  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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board believes that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  The Board notes that on similar cases we’d normally remove the words “and conduct” from the narrative reason for separation when there is no misconduct cited in the discharge file.  However, it appears that according to the applicant’s training records, he may have attempted to not qualify on the firing range.  In our opinion this could be interpreted as a form of misconduct, and as such, we find no basis to change the narrative reason for separation.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00703 in Executive Session on 10 September 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 February 2002, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 March 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 June 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 June 2002.