RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00076

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 SEPT 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that he could have successfully completed his training while he continued to receive medical treatment.  Until the time he was removed from training class, his performance was satisfactory.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement. 

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 9 March 2004 for a term of six years. 

On 27 July 2004, the commander notified the member that he was being discharge from the Air Force for entry-level performance and conduct. Basis for commander’s recommendation was applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in a required training program. Specifically, applicant failed Block 1, Unit 12, Test A, with a score of 66%. After passing the retest, he continued to struggle by failing Block 2, Unit 11, Test A, twice with scores of 60% and 52% respectively; minimum passing score was 70%.  The applicant was involuntarily discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (entry-level performance and conduct) with service uncharacterized and a 2C reenlistment eligibility (RE) code. He served 4 months and 26 days of total active military service.
_________________________________________________________________
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:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 March 2005, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 an error or injustice concerning the applicant’s (RE) code.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing that his assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the prevailing instruction.  The RE code which was issued at the time of applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust.  We, therefore, conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

4.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting a change in the narrative reason for separation.  After reviewing the applicant’s submission and the evidence of record, the Board is of the opinion that some relief is warranted.  We note that the discharge action taken against the applicant was in accordance with the applicable instruction.  However, the Board finds the narrative reason for his 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 his separation for academic deficiency was also due to misconduct.  While the applicant may have had problems progressing in the required technical training courses, the Board saw no evidence of misconduct.  Therefore, in order to correct an injustice of improperly labeling the applicant, his narrative reason for separation should be corrected to accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation.  In view of the foregoing, the Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct” from his narrative reason for separation.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct” from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued on 4 August 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2005-00076 in Executive Session on 4 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 05, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Mar 05.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.

	
	Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-00076