AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02291
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
						COUNSEL:  NONE
						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reentry (RE) code of “2C” which denotes "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service" be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was dealing with the loss of her grandfather while attending a technical training course.  She did not give 110% because she wanted to be with her family.  She is now married to an active-duty spouse and wants to reenter the military.  She loves what the military has done for her and wants to serve.  She would like to enlist or finish her degree and work as a military nurse. 

In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

The complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 November 2003, for a period of four years.  

On 12 May 2004, she was notified by her commander that he was recommending she be discharged for her failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program.  The specific reasons for this action were that she failed Block 3-1B with a 68%, she failed Block Test 5-1B with a 56% and she failed Block Test 6-1A with a 67%.  The minimum passing score was 70%.  She failed five progress checks.  On 24 April 2004, she was disenrolled from her technical training course.  The flight commander stated she worked hard to learn the material but had difficulty providing medical care due to her grandfather’s health.  She was provided the opportunity to seek assistance with life skills and the chaplain; however, she denied life skills but sought counseling from the chaplain. The commander stated she lacked core values and effort, and recommended separation.
On 12 May 2004, she acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of her right to counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf. On 13 May 2003, she waived her right to submit a statement or consult with counsel.  On 19 May 2004, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the discharge.  On 27 May 2004, the approval authority directed her discharge with an uncharacterized service charaterization.

On 1 June 2004, she was discharged in the grade of airman.  She served six months and eight days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states the applicant failed three block tests, five progress checks and was disenrolled from technical training.  She was counseled on her academic failure and received 112 hours of inside/outside special individualized assistance.  DPSOA finds no evidence of error or injustices; nor did the applicant submit evidence of any.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states 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.  Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a member served less than 180 days of continuous active service it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, her uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DOD and Air Force instructions.  She did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  She provided no facts warranting a change to her RE code or narrative reason for separation.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 7 November 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

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 to warrant changing her RE code.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  We feel compelled to note that if she desires to do so, she has the available option of applying for enlistment into another branch of service if they are willing to waive her RE code.  Whether or not she is successful in her attempts to return to the military will depend on the needs of the service.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and  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-2008-02291 in Executive Session on 6 January 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Chair
				Member
				Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-02291 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 June 2008, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 11 July 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 29 September 2008.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 November 2008.

																	Chair