RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-00882 INDEX CODE:	112.10
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: 
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be changed to reflect a different narrative reason for discharge and a different reenlistment eligibility (RE) code to enable him to reenter military service.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reason and character of his separation is in error.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

The	applicant’s	complete	submission,	with	attachment,	is	at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 28 November 2005, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 19. He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective and with a date of rank of 2 June 2006.

On 5 June 2006, the applicant was disenrolled from training for unsatisfactory duty performance after failing three separate tests with scores of 50%, 65%, and 65% respectively during his technical school training. He had been counseled and afforded an opportunity to overcome his academic deficiencies prior to his elimination from training. He had attended 14 hours of Special Individualized Assistance and attended the Wing Learning Development Center  Study Skills, Test Anxiety, and Reading Comprehension courses.

On 19 June 2006, his commander notified the applicant that he was recommending him for discharge for unsatisfactory duty performance under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36- 3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The applicant acknowledged receipt and waived his rights to consult counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf. On 23 June 2006, the base staff judge advocate found the case to be legally sufficient and recommended he be separated from service with an honorable discharge without probation or rehabilitation.  On 27 June 2006,

the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge. On 29  June 2006, the applicant was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of unsatisfactory performance, and an RE code of “2C” (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge). He served seven months and one day on active duty.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denying the applicant’s requests. DPSOS states the applicant cites an error in the reason and character of his discharge in his petition to the Board; however, he offers no justification or evidence to support this contention. They believe that portion of his statement regarding his character of discharge is an oversight since the separation authority approved an honorable discharge characterization. The applicant refers to his discharge as an “entry level separation;” however, this statement is incorrect. Entry level separations are authorized if a notification of discharge action is initiated prior to the member reaching 180 days of continuous active service. The applicant had well over 180 days of continuous active service.

DPSOS states the applicant did not provide any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He provides no facts warranting a change to his RE code or narrative reason for separation. 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.

The DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
His counsel replies that the applicant’s separation is too harsh for an individual not involved in any misconduct. The applicant achieved a passing grade on several exams toward his training. Additionally, he submitted a statement desiring to remain in the Air Force. There was no mention of reclassification for a motivated young airman who had successfully completed basic training with no acts of misconduct.

The Counsel’s rebuttal is at Exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.
1.	
2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case file was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority. We find the RE code which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust. In view of the foregoing and absent evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.

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 this application in Executive Session on 19 June 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-00882:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 08, w/atch. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 18 Apr 08. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 08.
Exhibit E.	American Legion’s Reply, dated 29 May 08.