RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04032 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1) His reentry code (RE) 2C (involuntary separation with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed. 2) His separation code JHJ (unsatisfactory performance) be changed to allow him entry into the Air National Guard. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was separated from the Air Force for failing his Career Development Course (CDC). His commander told him joining the Air National Guard was a good plan. The recruiter informed him that failing his CDCs was not a concern to the Air National Guard. After receiving his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, he was told the reentry and separation codes prevent him from joining the Air National Guard. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, and a memorandum from the Base Training Manager. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 May 2008, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 21 October 2009 the applicant failed his end of course exam. After this failure, the unit conducted a review of the applicant’s training records and referred him to the Base Education Center for reading and comprehension evaluations. The applicant was removed from his normal duties and placed on mandatory study, to include two hours of supervised study. On 16 December 2009, the applicant failed his second end of course exam. On 23 March 2010, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for unsatisfactory performance: failure to progress in on-the-job training. The applicant acknowledged his right to consult counsel and submit matters on his behalf. On 25 March 2010, the applicant submitted matters for the commander’s consideration. On 6 April 2010, the case was found legally sufficient. On 17 April 2010, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for unsatisfactory performance: failure to progress in on-the- job training with an honorable discharge. He was credited with serving 1 year, 11 months and 5 days. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states there was no error or injustice in the processing of the discharge action. The discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states code 2C is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, based on his entry level separation with an honorable character of service. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 April 2011, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 material error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 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. 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 issues 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 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- 2010-04032 in Executive Session on 28 June 2011 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Oct 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 10 Feb 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 10 Mar 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Apr 11.