RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02015
INDEX CODE:  112.10 
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to enable her to explore future enlistment possibilities with the Armed Forces.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

To her knowledge, the only reason she was discharged from the Air Force was because of her failure to pass an F-16 Fighter block test.  Several other airmen who failed in this same manner were offered the option of being reclassified into another career field.  She feels that she was treated unfairly because her only desire is to serve her Country.  

In support of her application, the applicant provides copies of her basic military training performance summary; separation orders; commander’s recommendation for discharge with acknowledgements; DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty; and letters of character reference.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 January 2004, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 23 in the grade of airman first class (E-3) for a period of four years.  On 8 March 2004, following her successful completion of basic military training, the applicant was enrolled in technical training for aircraft maintenance.

On 19 May 2004, the applicant was disenrolled from the F-16 crew chief technical training course for consistently failing to meet academic standards.  Prior to her disenrollment, the applicant had been counseled for her academic failures, received seven hours of Special Individualized Assistance, attended the Academic Enrichment Program and was washed back once. 

On 7 June 2004, the applicant was notified by her commander of the intent to recommend her for discharge for failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program.  The applicant was advised of her rights to consult counsel and to submit a statement in her own behalf.  After consulting counsel, she submitted a statement in her own behalf along with character references.  On 10 June 2004, after considering her submission, the commander recommended the applicant be discharged for entry-level performance or conduct under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.22.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated 15 June 2004, the deputy staff judge advocate found the file legally sufficient and indicated the discharge authority had the option to either retain the applicant on active duty or to discharge her with an entry-level separation.  On 17 June 2004, the discharge authority directed the applicant be promptly discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.22, with an entry-level separation.  

On 18 June 2004, the applicant was discharged with an uncharacterized Entry-Level Separation because of entry-level performance with an RE code of 2C and a separation code of JGA.  She had served 4 months and 29 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in affect at that time.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any facts warranting a change in her reenlistment eligibility code, nor did she submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in her discharge processing.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 August 2004, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the evidence of record we are persuaded that relief is warranted.  We note the discharge action taken against the applicant was in accordance with the applicable instruction.  However, we are not convinced she was afforded a fair opportunity to cross-train into another career field more suitable to her capabilities and education.  In addition, we find the narrative reason for her entry-level separation; i.e., entry-level performance and conduct, to be overly harsh.  In our deliberations of this case, it appeared to us that the word “conduct” could be misconstrued to infer that her separation for academic deficiency was also due to misconduct.  While the applicant may have had problems progressing in the required technical training courses, we have seen no evidence of misconduct.  Therefore, in order to correct an injustice of improperly labeling the applicant, her narrative reason for separation should be corrected to accurately reflect the circumstances of her separation by deleting the words “and conduct” from her narrative reason for separation.  In view of the foregoing, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the reentry code, issued in conjunction with her entry level separation on 18 June 2004, was 3K (reserved for use by HQ AFPC or AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies), and the words “and conduct” be deleted from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 14 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02015 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jun 04, with atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Aug 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.

AFBCMR BC-2004-02015

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the reentry code, issued in conjunction with her entry level separation on 18 June 2004, was 3K (reserved for use by 
HQ AFPC or AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies), and the words “and conduct” be deleted from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.