RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03852

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His uncharacterized entry-level separation be changed so that he may reenlist into the Armed Forces.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a bit young when he failed the security specialist training.  However, he had all intentions to serve his country and now wishes the error can be resolved so he can have a chance to reenlist.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and a copy of AF Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of The United States.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 10 May 1991 for a term of four years. The applicant was involuntarily discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen (entry-level performance) with service uncharacterized. He served 2 months and 27 days of total active military service.

On 1 August 1991, the commander notified the member that he was being discharged for unsatisfactory entry-level performance.  The commander recommended applicant receive an entry level separation based on a report of evaluation from the Behavioral Analysis Service, Division of Mental Health, Wilford Hall Medical Center, which reported that the applicant was having difficulty in training and felt that applicant was trying his best.  Applicant’s DSM III-R diagnosis characterized him as having an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features.  Applicant’s ability to function in the military was noted as being significantly impaired.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and waived his rights to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation.  They recommended applicant be separated from the service with an entry-level separation. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that the applicant be separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial and stated that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  This discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service or his reenlistment eligibility code.  

Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, his uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated he acknowledge the notification of the discharge.  As the time passed, he thought that if at the time of his separation of mixed emotions, he was pushed and rushed through the Air Force separation process.  Though he was younger, he did his best.  He may have made an irresponsible decision to obtain counsel, but over the years, he knew better and he should have filed for correction or consulted with legal counsel.  He has no original copies of any military records to actually help or support him with his comments.  However, he contends that he was rushed through the separation, and he has matured over the years to realize that he should have contested this decision.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After careful consideration of the circumstances of this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that the applicant's discharge and the reenlistment code he received were in error or unjust.  The Board notes the discharge and RE code "2C" that the applicant received indicates an uncharacterized entry-level separation for serving less than 6 months of service that would be appropriate considering that the applicant served 2 months and 27 days of active military service.  While the applicant’s contentions are duly noted, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not established that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 issues 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 a 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-2004-03852 in Executive Session on 24 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 24 Nov 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jan 05.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 05.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant's Response, 31 Jan 05.