RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00582 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be amended as follows: 1. Item 26, Separation Code “JHJ” which denotes “Unsatisfactory Performance” be changed. 2. Item 27, Reentry (RE) Code “2C” which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” be changed. (Will be administratively corrected) APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an honorable discharge and requests that he be provided more favorable separation and RE codes. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 Jun 12, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 22 Oct 13, the applicant’s commander notified him of his decision to recommend his discharge from the Air Force In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.26.3 for failure to progress in military training. The applicant failed Block 1, Unit 3, Version A test with a score of 67 percent. Additionally, there was other derogatory information considered but not included as a basis for the administrative discharge. The applicant was convicted on 28 Jun 13 by a summary court-martial as to one charge and two specifications, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On or about 23 Jul 13 and or about 24 Jul 13, he failed to adhere to the call to quarters by 2200 hours and consumed alcohol within 12 hours prior to duty. He was sentenced to 20 days restriction to the limits of Hurlburt Field, FL and was reprimanded. On 22 Oct 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, his right to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. On 5 Nov 13, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge recommendation legally sufficient. On 25 Nov 13, the discharge authority approved the discharge recommendation. On 14 Jan 14, he received an honorable discharge with a RE code of “2C” and a narrative reason for separation of “Unsatisfactory Performance.” He was credited with 1 year, 7 months and 10 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code “2C” is erroneous and will administratively correct his record to reflect RE code “3A” which denotes “First-term Airman [involuntarily separated] {entry level} for inability to satisfactorily progress in a required training program without characterization of service; or first-term Airman [involuntarily separated] for failure to progress in military training required to be qualified for service with the Air Force or for performance of primary duties” based on his discharge for inability to progress in military training. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, Table 5.3, note 4, states not to update RE code “2C” when the airman was in initial technical training; the applicant was in initial technical training. The complete copy of the DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the request to change his separation code. The applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant was given several opportunities to overcome his deficiencies but efforts by his instructors were unsuccessful, therefore, the applicant was removed from the Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) Apprentice Course. Based on his poor academic and physical performance combined with other derogatory information in his record, the commander did not recommend him for reclassification. As a result, the commander’s only other option was to recommend discharge. Therefore, the separation code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated. Further, the commander recommended an honorable service characterization and the base legal office concurred with the recommendation since the primary basis of the discharge was academic failure and not misconduct. Therefore, the character of service is correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214. The complete copy of the DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He concurs with the change of his RE code to “3A.” The applicant’s complete response 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 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 the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, aside from the administrative correction of his RE code to “3A,” we find no basis to recommend granting the additional 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 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-2014-00582 in Executive Session on 20 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence in AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2014-00582 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Feb 14. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 19 Sep 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 3 Oct 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 14. Exhibit F. E-mail, Applicant, 17 Nov 14.