RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03631 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her Reentry (RE) Code of 2C (Entry Level Performance or Conduct) 

be changed so she can apply to the U.S. Navy. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her dream has always been to serve in the military. She 
prepared for military service by completing three years of Navy 
Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (NJROTC) in high school. 
She made it through half of Tech School, and after flunking a 
test for the second time, was shocked, horrified, and 
heartbroken to find out she was being discharged. She believes 
the RE code of 2C is too harsh to give to someone discharged for 
academic reasons. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, and information from her high 
school NJROTC Program. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered the Air Force on 2 Nov 10. 

 

On 24 Mar 11, the applicant’s commander notified her of his 
intent to discharge her from the Air Force with an entry-level 
separation (ELS) for failure to make satisfactory progress in a 
required training program. The separation recommendation was 
based on the fact that on or about 20 Jan 11, the applicant 
failed the Block I, Version A Test of the Logistics Plans 
Apprentice Course with a score of 50 percent, when a minimum 
passing score was 70 percent. After washing back and receiving 
Special Individualized Assistance, on or about 24 Feb 11, she 
failed the Block 1, Version B Test with a score of 60 percent, 
and was eliminated from the course. 

 


On 29 Mar 11, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and waived her right to consult counsel and to submit a 
statement. On 30 Mar 11, the case was determined to be legally 
sufficient and, on 31 Mar 11, the discharge authority concurred 
with the commander’s recommendation, directing the applicant be 
discharged. On 7 Apr 11, the applicant was furnished an ELS 
with uncharacterized service and an RE Code of 2C, after serving 
five months and six days of active service. 

 

Airmen are given an ELS with uncharacterized service when 
separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous 
active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined it 
would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize a 
member’s limited service when separation is initiated within the 
first 180 days of active service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The applicant does not provide any 
evidence that supports a correction of her RE code. The RE code 
of 2C with uncharacterized service is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, Chapter 3, based on her ELS. Her 
desire to reenter the military is noted, however, each component 
of the military decides what conditions and RE codes they will 
or will not accept for prior service members, which may change 
over time. A waiver from the recruiting service (if they deem 
it appropriate) would be more appropriate than circumventing the 
screening process by changing the RE code based on member’s 
desire to reenter the military. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 Nov 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
applicant was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with the 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03631 in Executive Session on 24 Apr 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 19 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Nov 11.