RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00972
				INDEX CODE:  110.00
				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The “2C” reenlistment eligibility (RE) code he received be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist into the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He realizes that he should not have taken such a good opportunity for granted.  He has learned from his mistakes.  He regrets the mistakes he made and wants to be a member of the Air Force and believes he would be a valuable asset.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 30 December 2002, as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years. 

On 6 May 2003, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend him for discharge for Entry Level Performance or Conduct.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

	a.  On 24 March 2003, the applicant failed to refrain from talking during physical conditioning (PC), and continued to talk even after being instructed to stop.  For this misconduct, the applicant received an AETC Form 341 (Excellence/Discrepancy Report), dated 24 March 2003.

	b.  On 5 April 2003, the applicant failed to report for Remedial Training (RMT) and, as a result, received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 19 April 2003 and was rescheduled for RMT on 19 April 2003.

	c.  On 9 April 2003, the applicant fell asleep during class.  For this misconduct, he received an AETC Form 341, dated 9 April 2003.

	d.  The applicant, on 19 April 2003, again failed to report to RMT.  For this misconduct, the applicant received an LOR dated 19 April 2003.  Subsequently, the Military Training Liaison (MTL) discovered the applicant had six consecutive room inspection failures and for this misconduct, he received a LOR dated 19 April 2003.

	e.  The applicant, on 22 April 2003, failed to sign in at the squadron and return to class following his appointment at the clinic.  When the applicant was questioned about his whereabouts following his clinic appointment, he lied about where he was and the time he signed in.  The applicant also made a false entry on the sign in log.  For this misconduct, he received a LOR dated 23 April 2004.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel, submit statements in his own behalf, or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 6 May 2003, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his right to submit a statement.

On 6 May 2003, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant be separated with an entry-level separation.

The discharge authority approved the applicant’s entry-level discharge.

On 13 May 2003, the applicant was separated in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 for entry-level performance and conduct with an uncharacterized entry level separation.  He served 4 months and 14 days of active military service.  He was issued an RE code of 2C which denotes he was involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge, or entry-level separation without characterization of service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the applicant's records, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Also, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.

Air Force policy is that entry-level separations/uncharacterized service characterizations are given to service members who have not completed more than 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a service member served less than 180 days of active service, that it would be unfair to the member to characterize that service.  The applicant's uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DOD and AFIs.  The uncharacterized separation should not be viewed as negative and not be confused with other types of separations.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 April 2004, for review and response.  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 error or injustice concerning the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, it appears that the RE code which was issued at the time of his separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation.  The applicant has not provided persuasive evidence showing that the assigned code is in error or unjust or contrary to the prevailing instruction.  Therefore, we conclude there is no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on his request to the change RE code.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-00972 in Executive Session on 18 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, 19 Mar 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Apr 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Apr 04.