RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03141
							INDEX CODE 100.06
	 						COUNSEL:  None

							HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C to 3K or 1A.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code is too harsh for the circumstances surrounding his discharge. He was not afforded the opportunity to retrain or train in another Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). With an upgraded RE code, he can join the Air Force Reserves.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits supporting statements from the North Charleston, SC, mayor, police department, a preliminary hearing court judge, and a magistrate attesting to the applicant’s character and performance as a police detective. The applicant’s Congressional Representative also provided support.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 Jan 89 for a period of four years and assigned to Charleston AFB, SC.

The applicant’s training progress records as a loadmaster include suggestions for additional study, more self-initiative, and better time management, crew coordination, and attitude/relationship skills. Additional instruction/review of difficult areas was recommended. The applicant apparently at some point indicated he didn’t care if he ever upgraded and was only in for four years.  He was briefed on self-study habits and advised to ask questions, be more assertive, and accept constructive criticism.

On 20 Nov 89, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for unsatisfactory professionalism, initiative/attitude, judgment, and tact/diplomacy in his loadmaster training. The LOR indicated this was not the first instructor to grade him unsatisfactory in one or more of these areas and that other instructors had made negative comments concerning his performance. He was found derelict in his duties in failing to perform his upgrade duties and responsibilities in an efficient manner even though he had the ability and the opportunity to do so.

After a brief improvement, the applicant’s training progress records reflect he was counseled on his downgraded areas and professional image. The applicant again showed improvement in timeliness and attitude and appeared to be “on the right track after several stumbles.” He demonstrated good abilities during a demanding mission and accomplished his loadmaster duties well. He was recommended for evaluation. He then was downgraded in certain areas and found to have a difficult time making decisions because his instructors often made them for him.

A Certificate of Aircrew Qualification dated 18 Jan 90 noted the applicant went to sleep while performing primary duties in-flight and failed to perform proper tests. A minimum of three training flights was recommended.

Progress records reflect the applicant demonstrated he had the knowledge and ability required to perform his duties. However, reports noted he continued to fail aspects of his duties and did not seem to possess a genuine willingness to upgrade or maintain proficiency. The applicant apparently indicated that half the time he would “rather be working toward some other job, like being a cop or a weapons range instructor.” Counseling was suggested.

On 23 Feb 90, an Aircrew Review and Certification Board convened. The applicant’s additional training was reviewed. Based on his performance during his last two missions and his demonstrated attitude on numerous training flights, the board found he did not successfully upgrade and recommended he be removed from aviation service. 

On 9 May 90, he was permanently disqualified from aviation service. Apparently, he was not recommended for retraining but was recommended for separation. 

An evaluation was required for his AFR 39-10 discharge. AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, for the period 24 May through 18 Jun 90 described the applicant’s assistance in a vehicular accident while he was on leave. The rater noted that, although the applicant had the ability to achieve, he lacked the drive and initiative to become a fully qualified loadmaster. Further, his attitude toward his training was less than adequate and instructors commented his progression had declined. The applicant had the intelligence to accomplish any task but sometimes lacked the maturity to decide the best course of action.

On 20 Jun 90, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend an honorable discharge for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant was subsequently recommended for an honorable discharge. The commander indicated the applicant was afforded every opportunity to become a fully qualified loadmaster, had flown with every assigned instructor, been counseled several times, and given priority on all training missions. Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) was not recommended because of the applicant’s attitude towards the Air Force and his lackadaisical approach to even minimum standards. The applicant submitted statements for consideration, indicating his enthusiasm was dampened by instructors’ demeaning comments and complete lack of inconsistent training. He indicated he had no difficulties with basic, technical, and combat survival training at other bases. He expressed a strong desire to remain in the Air Force and asked to be retrained to an AFSC needed at Charleston AFB.

Legal review on 9 Jul 90 found the case sufficient and recommended honorable discharge without P&R essentially because of the applicant’s attitude problem. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation on 12 Jul 90 and directed the applicant’s discharge.

On 17 Jul 90, the applicant was honorably discharged for unsatisfactory performance in the grade of airman first class after 1 year, 5 months and 29 days of active service. He was issued an RE code of 2C (Involuntarily discharged under AFR 39-10 with an honorable characterization or a non-characterized entry level separation). 

The applicant is asking for an RE code of 1A or 3K. In 1990, 1A meant “Ineligible to reenlist but condition waived.” However, according to the regulation notes, airmen cannot be separated with this code.  In 1990, 3K meant “Second term or career airman serving in the grade of SRA who has not been appointed to NCO Status.” The applicant may believe it means “Reserved for use by HQ AFMPC or the AFBCMR;” however, this meaning for 3K did not come into existence until 18 Jul 91, after he was discharged. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

HQ AFPC/DPPRSP believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant has not substantiated any errors or injustices and his appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION: 

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 Oct 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; however, it is in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that his RE code should be changed.  At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that, given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the appropriate directives. We commend the applicant’s post-service performance, but the evidence of record reflects that he did not apply himself to his Air Force duties despite having the ability to master his training. Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.

4.	The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 18 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence regarding AFBCMR Docket No. BC-2003-03141 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 16 Oct 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.