RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04645 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: While it is not readily apparent, it appears as though the applicant is requesting that his entry-level separation with uncharacterized service be upgraded to an honorable discharge, and his Reentry (RE) code of 2C (Entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed so he may reenlist. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unfairly discharged from the Air Force for not attaining a passing score on his Block III test. He was not afforded all available opportunities to succeed. In the aftermath of his first test failure where he scored 83 percent, he was only given 1.5 additional hours of instruction before attempting to retest. Air Force instructions indicate airmen should be given an opportunity to overcome their deficiencies before discharge action begins and the Second Air Force Commander’s stated goal (Air Force Times, 23 Mar 10) is that every effort be made by the training squadrons to assist in ensuring that every trainee succeeds. According to the General, special individualized assistance, wash back, and retesting are available to ensure the best trained airmen, combat ready airman. However, the applicant was never afforded the opportunity to be washed back and was only provided 1.5 hours of individualized instruction before being recommended for discharge. After the decision was made to discharge him, he found out the squadron changed its policy with respect to first time test failures to automatically wash them back to repeat the block of study. Additionally, he should not have been given an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service because he served more than 180 days on active duty. In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded statement and copies of excerpts from his military personnel records, a pertinent Air Force Times article, and excerpts from AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Feb 10 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years. On 20 Jul 10, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for entry- level performance and conduct for his failure to make satisfactory progress in a required course of instruction. The specific reasons for the action were that he twice failed to attain a passing score on the Block III, Unit 8, Test A, with scores of 83 and 80 percent, when the passing score was 85 percent. On 20 Jul 10, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and elected not to submit a statement in his behalf. On 10 Aug 10, the applicant was furnished an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service and was credited with six months and nine days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant was eliminated from the Basic Airborne Mission System Specialist Course for twice failing the Block III, Unit 8, Test A with scores of 83 and 80 percent, respectively. His discharge record reflects he was counseled and afforded an opportunity to overcome his academic deficiencies. As for his assertion he should have been honorably discharged instead of being furnished an entry-level separation; airmen are given entry-level separation with uncharacterized service when separation is initiated within the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined it would be unfair, to both the department and the member, to characterize a member’s limited service when such service is less than 180 days. The applicant was notified of separation on 20 Jul 10, which was 168 days from his date of entry, well within the 180 days required for an entry-level separation. Based on the documentation on file, the discharge, to include the service characterization, was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s RE code of 2C is required in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, based on his entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. The applicant has provided no evidence to suggest the RE code issued in conjunction with his entry-level separation is wrong. He believes he was unfairly discharged; however, his discharge was found to be legally sufficient and according to the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation, his discharge, to include his uncharacterized service and entry-level separation, was appropriate and in compliance with the applicable governing instructions. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11 May 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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. 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 that occurred during the discharge process. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s entry-level separation for failure to satisfactorily progress in a required course of instruction was consistent with the substantive requirements of the governing instructions and within the commander’s discretionary authority. He has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe his entry-level separation with uncharacterized service was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing directive, or the RE code issued in conjunction with his entry-level separation was erroneous or inappropriately assigned. Therefore, absent evidence the applicant was not afforded rights to which he was entitled, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04645 in Executive Session on 7 Sep 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Dec 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 21 Mar 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 Apr 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 11.