RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00624
		INDEX CODE:  100.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow enlistment into the Air Force Reserve (AFRES).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was trying to find a way to get out of the service to spend time with his grandfather and mother after his grandmother died.  They were a very close family and he felt like his grandfather and mother needed him to be home.  He spoke with his supervisor and eventually his First Sergeant.  The First Sergeant recommended that he fail his Career Development Course (CDC) tests as the fastest way to get out of the service.  The First Sergeant assured the applicant that he would be honorably discharged.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has submitted a personal statement.

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 October 1992.  He attained the grade of Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with a date of rank (DOR) of 20 February 1994.  On 10 August 1994, the applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR) as punishment for failing a CDC test, refusing to retake the test, and then when ordered to retake the test, failing the retest.  The applicant was notified on 12 August 1994 that he was being recommended for discharge under the auspices of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10, Unsatisfactory Performance - Failure to Progress in Training.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and consulted counsel but waived his right to submit statements.  On 22 August 1994, the recommendation was found legally sufficient for honorable discharge and no probation & rehabilitation (P&R).  Applicant was discharged effective 29 August 1994, as an A1C after serving 1 year, 10 months, and 10 days.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE has reviewed this case and verified that the RE code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service” is correct.

DPPAE’s evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this case and recommended denial.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretionary powers of the discharge authority.  They note the DRB’s denial, in December 1997, of the application and that the request is not timely.  No new evidence or any identification of error or injustice has been presented to warrant a change to the discharge.

DPPRS’s complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 May 2003 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case to include his statements concerning the reasons he was involuntarily separated.  Regardless of the reasons for his failure to complete the training, other than his own statement, the applicant has provided no evidence to show his discharge and the corresponding RE code he received were erroneous or unjust.  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 BC-2003-00624 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 03, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair