RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-05130 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Re-entry (RE) code “2C” “Approved Honorable Involuntary Separation or Entry Level Separation” be changed to allow him to reenlist in the Air Force or Air National Guard. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He feels that the RE code is not fair because he was applying himself to become a better Airman. Even though he failed to qualify with the M-14 assault rifle, he was improving. If given a second chance, he can prove himself a worthy hand in protecting his country. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to copies of documents extracted from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS), the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 May 2010. On 20 August 2010, his commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for entry level performance or conduct, under the provisions of Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208 Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.22.2.3. Specifically, the applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in a required training program. On 20 August 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s intent to discharge him and waived his rights to consult counsel and submit statements on his behalf. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged with an entry level separation. Effective 31 August 2010, the applicant was discharged with an entry level separation and “Uncharacterized” service. He was credited with serving 3 months and 20 days of active duty. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that the applicant failed to achieve the minimum passing score of 25 on the M4 Carbine. The applicant received Special Individualized Assistance (SIA) and was re-tested on the same day, however, he failed to qualify for the second time and was washed to the next appropriate team. The applicant was given one last opportunity to fire with his new team and yet failed to achieve the minimum passing score of 25 after three overall attempts (scoring 14%, 22%, and 15%). The applicant's training records indicated he appeared to lack the aptitude and motivation to successfully complete Security Forces training or have a successful Air Force career. 2. The applicant's service characterization is correct as reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service which resulted in the RE code 2C on his DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. 3. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel record, the discharge including the service characterization was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge warranting a change to his type of discharge or character of service. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicants RE Code 2C is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the United States Air Force, chapter 3, based on his involuntary discharge with an honorable character of service. The applicant has not provided any evidence that supports a correction to his RE code. The complete 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 23 March 2012 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received. ________________________________________________________________ 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 find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during the discharge process. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. 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. 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 this application in Executive Session on 16 April 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-05130: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 w/atchs dated 20 December 2011. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 21 February 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 March 2012 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 March 2012 AFBCMR 1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700 Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762 Dear: Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-05130. After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice. Accordingly, the Board denied your application. You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the Board. In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not possible. Attachment: Record of Board Proceedings