RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01146 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized entry-level separation be changed to an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his discharge, he was told that in 30 days there would be no record of his enlistment. However, he recently discovered the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, which he received, would follow him for the rest of his life. Unless the character of service is changed to honorable, he will not be able to move forward in the hiring process with the local police department to serve and protect his hometown. He has always wanted a job in law enforcement; however, he entered the Air Force as an Avionics Guidance and Control Systems helper. He was only able to complete a few blocks in technical school before he washed out due to poor test scores. While he had the opportunity to retrain into another career field; regrettably, he chose to be discharged. He would be grateful if the Board would correct his record so he can pursue his dream in law enforcement. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 November 1992. On 16 April 1993, the commander notified the member that he was being discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen – Entry Level Performance and Conduct. The commander recommended the applicant receive an uncharacterized entry-level separation. The specific reasons for this action were: 1) On 23 February 1993, he failed Block II exam with a score of 68; 2) On 23 March 1993, he received a low score of 70; 3) On 7 April 1993, he failed Block VI exam with a score of 63; 4) On 9 April 1993, he was eliminated from technical training by the commander for academic deficiency. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, consulted with counsel and waived his right to submit 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 22 April 1993, the applicant was involuntarily discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-10, with an uncharacterized entry- level separation. He served 4 months and 23 days of total active military service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request. DPSOS states the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of his discharge warranting a change to his character of service, separation code or narrative reason for separation. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he accepted the opportunity to leave the military; however, he did not realize the “uncharacterized” designation on his DD Form would have negative consequences later in his life. On several occasions, he has applied for positions that required a background investigation; however, they would stop the process once the employer realized he had an uncharacterized designation on his record. The police agency he has applied for employment required that he have a general discharge rather than an uncharacterized one. The 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 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 error or injustice. The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing instruction and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation was inappropriate. Airman 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 continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, his uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01146 in Executive Session on 17 November 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 10, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 17 Sep 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 10. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Nov 10.