RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00821 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

 1. His reentry (RE) code of 2C which denotes (Involuntarily 
separated with an honorable discharge) be changed to allow his 
reentry into the military. 

 

 2. His narrative reason for separation (Unsatisfactory 
Performance) be changed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His performance was outstanding, but he failed academically. 

 

His original contract was voided after he was eliminated from the 
3C231 (Communication-Computer Systems Control) specialty. He was 
reclassified into 3P011 (Security Forces); he had no desire to 
serve in the 3P011 career filed, and as a result he failed his 
exams. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 26 Jan 10, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for 
a period of six years, as a Security Forces Helper. 

 

On 19 Aug 10, the applicant was notified by his squadron 
commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air 
Force for unsatisfactory duty performance, for failure to 
progress in military training. The reasons for the proposed 
action were: 

 

 1) On 3 Jun 10, he failed Block I, Unit 6, Test 1C with a 
score of 60 percent; the minimum passing score was 70 percent. 
As a result, he was counseled, received two hours of Special 
Individual Assistance (SIA), and retested. 

 

 2) On 8 Jul 10, he failed Block I, Unit 34, Test 4C with a 
score of 57 percent; the minimum passing score was 70 percent. 
As a result, he was counseled, received two hours of SIA, and 
retested. 

 


 3) On 15 Jul 10, he failed Block I, Unit 34, Test 4A with a 
score of 60 percent, the minimum passing score was 70 percent. 
As a result, he was eliminated from the course. 

 

 5) On 19 Aug 10, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and waived his right to consult legal 
counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. 

 

The base legal office found the case legally sufficient to 
support the separation, and on 3 Sep 10, the discharge authority 
approved the separation and directed an honorable discharge. 

 

On 8 Sep 10, the applicant was discharged by reason of 
unsatisfactory performance, and issued an RE code of 2C. He 
served on active duty for a period of 7 months and 13 days. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of his request to change his 
narrative reason for separation. DPSOS states the applicant 
received counseling on several occasions and was afforded ample 
opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. DPSOS found no 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 characterization of service 
and separation code was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant 
did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices 
that occurred in the discharge processing. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of his request to change his RE 
code. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code is correct based on 
his involuntary separation with an honorable characterization of 
service. The applicant did not provide any supporting evidence 
of an error or injustice that would warrant a change in his RE 
code. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 1 Jul 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, 
a response has not been received (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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, 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. 
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 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-2011-00821 in Executive Session on 23 Aug 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 25 May 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 22 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair