RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03906
		INDEX NUMBER:  100.06

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to permit reentry into the military.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He doesn’t understand why he received an RE code that would prevent him from reenlisting in the military when he received an honorable discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Jan 02, in the grade of airman basic (E-1), for a period of four years.  His highest grade held was airman (E-2).  The record contains one Enlisted Performance Report, with an overall promotion recommendation of 3.

On 24 Feb 03, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or about 29 Jan 03, and on or about 31 Jan 03.  Punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the grade of E-1, and 14 days of extra duty.  The suspended reduction in grade was vacated on 29 Apr 03, based on applicant’s failure to go on or about 4 Apr 03, and his dereliction of duties on or about 20 and 21 Mar 03.

On 21 Oct 03, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending he be discharged for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander recommended the applicant receive an honorable discharge.  The reasons for the proposed discharge were:  (1) On  29 Jul 03, member failed his Career Development Course (CDC) end-of-course (EOC) examination with a score of 59 percent – minimum passing score was 65 percent; and (2) On 30 Sep 03, member failed his CDC EOC examination with a score of 63 percent – minimum passing score was 65 percent.  Other derogatory information cited by the commander included applicant’s receipt of two letters of counseling on 11 Sep and 11 Oct 02, for failure to go; a letter of reprimand (LOR) on 25 Oct 02, for failure to go; and an LOR on     3 Sep 03, for dereliction of duty.

On 21 Oct 03, applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with legal counsel waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  

On 29 Oct 03, the Wing Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  On 31 Oct 03, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge.  Applicant was honorably discharged on 6 Nov 03, in the grade of airman (E-2), under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  He was issued an RE Code of 2C [involuntary separated with an honorable discharge].  He served 1 year, 10 months, and 5 days of active military service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They stated, in part, 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 and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Additionally, the 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 reenlistment eligibility code.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant would like those who are making the final decision in his case to consider other factors before making things final.  He realizes the noncompletion of his CDC’s was a big reason for his discharge.  He had no problem with the hands-on part of his job.  His supervisors had complete confidence in him to do the task at hand.  He respected rank and got along with others in his squadron.  He looked out for his fellow airmen making sure they didn’t get into any illegal activity.  He admits he made some mistakes, but would like another chance in the Air Force.

Applicant’s response to Air Force evaluation 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.  At the time a member is separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation.  The assigned code reflects the Air Force’s position regarding whether or not, or under what circumstances, the individual should be allowed to reenlist.  Applicant’s assigned RE Code of 2C accurately reflects his involuntary separation with an honorable discharge.  After careful consideration of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the assigned RE code is in error or unjust or that an upgrade of the RE code is warranted.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

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‑2004-03906 in Executive Session on 22 February 2005 and 8 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jan 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.