RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02938
		INDEX CODE:	 100.03, 100.06
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not expect to be separated from the Air Force for failing a couple of tests.  He feels that he deserves a second chance and would like to serve in the Air National Guard.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a letter from his parents, a letter from DeVry University, and a letter from a Texas Air National Guard Recruiter.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 February 2002 for a term of 4 years.

On 17 May 2002, he was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (Entry-Level Performance and Conduct).  The reason for this action was that he failed to make a passing score on required training.  He scored 50% and 48% and the required passing score was 70%.  He also failed to qualify on the M16A2 weapon.  He scored 10 and the passing score was 25.  Additionally, he failed to show for mandatory retesting on 22 April and 3 May 2002.  He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  He elected to waive his right to consult counsel.  In a legal review of the case file, the assistant staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended that he be discharged without probation and rehabilitation.   The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed that he be discharged with an entry-level separation.  He served 5 months and 17 days on active duty and was issued an RE code of “2C.”

_____________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active 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 DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.    Based on the review of his case file, his RE code 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Feb 03, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant changing his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.  Evidence has not been provided in support of his appeal, which would lead us to believe that a change to his RE code is warranted.  It is our opinion, that his uncharacterized character of service was proper and in compliance with governing directives.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES 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-2002-02938 in Executive Session on 9 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 Dec 02 w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Jan 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 20 Feb 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.