RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02888 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncharacterized service be changed to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was promised to be placed into the cook or food services career field but was instead placed into the aerospace ground equipment helper career field that he did not want. He tried to change his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) - but was denied. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 14 June 1984. The applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10. The specific reason was the applicant was disenrolled from technical training for academic deficiency on 7 September 1984. He was advised of his rights in this matter and after consulting with counsel he elected to waive his right to submit a statement on his own behalf. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged. On 13 September 1984, the applicant was furnished an entry level separation, and was credited with 3 months of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRS/RSO recommends denial. RSO states that the Air Force Recruiting Service does not maintain pre-accession records dating back to the time the applicant entered the Air Force; they are unable to review the actions taken during his enlistment processing. Therefore, they have to recommend disapproval of his request for a change in his separation category from uncharacterized separation – entry level to an honorable discharge. A complete copy of the AFRS/RSO evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the applicant has not filed a timely petition within three years of discovery of the alleged error or injustice. It is not in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant has exhausted all available administrative avenues of relief before applying to the Board. The record shows that the applicant was given multiple opportunities to overcome his academic deficiencies. He was held back a week to go over the academic material again, counseled, given specialized individual assistance, and allowed to retake the progress checks that he had previously failed. None of these efforts met with any success. His instructor concluded that the applicant did not appear to be putting forth maximum effort to be successful in class. As a result, the applicant was disenrolled and discharge action was initiated. Therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the DD Form 214. The entry level/uncharacterized service that is reflected as “Not Applicable” on his DD Form 214 is also correct. Airmen are given entry level separation with uncharacterized service when the discharge is initiated within the first 180 days of 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. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The type of discharge, SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service are all correct. No evidence of an error or injustice related to the discharge processing was found. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 May 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely; however, it is in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice with respect to his uncharacterized separation. After carefully reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s uncharacterized entry level separation should be changed. Therefore, 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 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. 4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice warranting some relief. After reviewing the complete evidence of record we believe the term “performance and conduct,” which currently accompanies his Narrative Reason for Discharge, does not accurately identify the circumstances surrounding his separation. It appears that the word “conduct” could be misconstrued to infer that his separation for failure to make satisfactory academic progress was also due to misconduct. While the applicant may have had problems progressing in the required training program, his discharge was not due to misconduct. Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct” from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued on 13 September 1984. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02888 in Executive Session on 30 June 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 October 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFRS/RSO, dated 1 May 2015. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 5 May 2015. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 May 2015.