RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00481 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His narrative reason for separation of “Unsatisfactory Performance” be changed. 2. His “2C” reentry (RE) code (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service) be changed to allow his reenlistment. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has no disciplinary reasons for separation and his referenced codes are preventing him from reentering the military. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s records reflect that he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 Jan 10 for a period of four years. 21 Oct 10, he was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for unsatisfactory duty performance. The specific reason for the proposed discharge was that he failed to perform his assigned duties by not making satisfactory progress in the Aerospace maintenance Apprentice course. Due to the failures, he was disenrolled from technical training on 16 Sep 10. The applicant was advised of his right to consult with counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. The discharge case was reviewed by the base legal office and they recommended the applicant receive an honorable discharge. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge. On 26 Oct 10, he was honorably discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Unsatisfactory Performance. He served a total of nine months and eight days of active service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states they found no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the discharge action. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the narrative reason for separation was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the RE code 2C is the appropriate RE code in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, based on the applicant’s involuntary honorable discharge. Additionally, the RE code of 2C may be waived to permit an applicant’s enlistment; however, that does not mean that everyone with a 2C RE code will get a waiver processed as recruiting services will make such a determination based on the needs of the Air Force. The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: He was set up for failure by the Air Force. Despite repeatedly indicating that he sufferred from attention deficit disorder (ADD) and a non-verbal learning disability (NLD), he was entered into an Air Force Specialty Code that was too technical despite requesting to be reclassified. Additionally, despite the assertion of the Air Force advisory writers, his current RE code is not waiverable and is preventing him from enlisting in another service The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his response to the advisory opinions, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of error or injustice. We note the applicant’s assertion in response to the Air Force advisory that he was set up for failure by the Air Force when they classified him into a technical career field despite his documented learning disability. However, other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence to indicate the Air Force’s actions with respect to his classification or ultimate separation were erroneous or unjust. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant is 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-2011-00481 in Executive Session on 7 Sep 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00481 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Feb 11. Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 10 May 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 May 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 11. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jul 11, w/atch. Panel Chair