RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-02966 INDEX CODE:	110.00
XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NOT INDICATED

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His	uncharacterized	entry-level	separation	be	changed	to	an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is Korean and had a difficult time understanding the Enlish language while attending training to become a heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration specialist. He would like to improve his English skills which will enable him to remain a part of the Air Force.

In support of his application, applicant provides a copy of AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, a personal letter, a copy of USMEPCOM Form 680-3A-E, Request for Examination, and a copy of DD Form 2808, Report of Medical History.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman first class on 3 December 2007.

On 1 May 2008, the commander notified the applicant that he was being discharged from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance - failure to progress in a required training program. Specifically, he twice failed Block 1, Unit 5 Test with scores of 60% and 63%. Minimum passing score is 70%. As a result of these failures, he was disenrolled from the technical training course on 24 April 2008.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, consulted with counsel and submitted statements in his own behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation. They recommended he be separated with an entry-level separation without probation or

rehabilitation. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that he be separated with an uncharacterized entry- level separation without probation or rehabilitation.

On 15 May 2008, the applicant was involuntarily discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (Unsatisfactory Performance for Failure to Progress in a Required Training Program), with an uncharacterized entry-level separation. He served 5 months and 13 days of total active military service.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial and states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records; the discharge was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge warranting a change to his character of service.

AFPC/DPSOS' complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated it was unfair and unjust to just discharge him without reclassifying. Other airmen that failed a block test were allowed to be reclassified. He thinks he should be given another chance, even though he did not pass the HVAC, it is a good idea to give him second attempt to get in the administrative career field. When the system gives a choice to some people for reclassification and not others, he believes this is unfair.

Applicant's complete response 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
1.	
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 which is appropriate considering that the applicant served only
5 months and 13 days of active military service. While the applicant’s contentions are duly noted, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of professional responsibility (OPR) 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. In regards to the applicant's contention that the system is unfair when it allows some to reclassify but not others; it appears that the decision to reclassify an individual into another career field is based on the needs of the Air Force at the time of reclassification. Therefore, 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 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- 2008-02966 in Executive Session on 11 March 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Chair 
Member 
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02966:

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Sep 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 21 Nov 08. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jan 09.
Exhibit E. Applicant's Response, 6 Feb 09.