RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00087
		INDEX NUMBER: 100.06

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of “2C” be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code should be upgraded because he only had one or two bad/negative things happen in his six and one-half years of service.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 26 November 1996.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 December 2001.  On 18 June 2003, the commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge for failure to progress in on-the-job training.  The bases for the proposed action were that, on or about 2 December 2002, the applicant failed to meet the minimum passing score of 65% on his Career Development Course (CDC) End of Course (EOC) examination by scoring 50%, for which he was immediately placed on mandatory two hour study during duty hours and was required to write a pretest; on or about 26 February 2003, he again failed to meet the minimum passing score of 65% on his CDC EOC examination by scoring 52%; and that on or about 5 June 2003, a commander’s evaluation was conducted to discuss his second failure of the CDC, at which time the commander determined he received sufficient direct supervision and formal training to have passed the EOC.  The commander also cited that on divers occasions between on or about 9 October 2002 and on or about 12 November 2002, applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties by willfully failing to limit his government travel card use to official business, for which he received an Article 15, dated 31 January 2003, resulting in a suspended reduction to the grade of senior airman and 14 days of extra duty.  He received an honorable discharge on 21 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Unsatisfactory Performance).  He completed a total of 6 years, 5 months, and 26 days of active service and was serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) at the time of discharge.  He received an RE Code of “2C,” which defined means "involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority and the applicant has not submitted any new evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. 

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 February 2004 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant upgrading his RE code. In this respect, we note that the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing instruction in effect at the time of his separation and that he was afforded all the rights to which entitled. Furthermore, he provides no evidence that his separation was inappropriate or that the assigned RE code reflecting his involuntary separation was in error or unjust.  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 BC-2004-00087 in Executive Session on 1 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Feb 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.

                                   Panel Chair