RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03513 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to enlist in the Air National Guard. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He joined the Air Force and wanted to become a pilot, which his recruiter said was possible. However, his recruiter was not truthful throughout the recruiting process. In addition, the instructors in Basic Military Training (BMT) had it out for him from the beginning. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because he has a family now and is afraid the current characterization of service looks dishonorable when applying for jobs. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 May 98, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 8 Oct 98, his section chief annotated his block II test failure indicating he would be placed into an academic enrichment program. On 30 Oct 98, his section chief annotated his block III failure on AETC Form 173, Student Record of Academic/Nonacademic Counseling and Comments, indicating this was his second consecutive block material he failed. On 5 Nov 98, his squadron commander notified him he was recommending he be discharged with an entry level separation for performance or conduct under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.22. Specifically, he failed Block II and Block III with scores of 42% and 64% respectively resulting in his disenrollment from technical training. He consulted counsel and waived his right to submit statements. On 16 Nov 98, his training group commander recommended he be discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.22, with an entry level separation. On 18 Nov 98, the applicant received an entry level separation with uncharacterized character of service and narrative reason for separation as entry level performance and conduct. He was credited with 6 months and 6 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation and character of service was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The record shows that the applicant was counseled several times concerning his course work and study habit. There were instances where he failed to complete mandatory homework assignments and failed two progress check objectives on two separate occasions. The applicant indicated to his instructor that he was not motivated to study in the evening as he should. Since the applicant had already been reclassified once before and gave his instructor the impression that he was not interested in putting forth his best effort to succeed in the military, the commander concluded that discharge was in order. Therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The applicant’s service characterization is also correct as indicated on his DD Form 214. Airmen are given Entry-level separation/Uncharacterized service characterization 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 on his DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant does not try to prove an error or injustice occurred but explains his circumstances and that he voluntarily separated. However, the applicant’s notification memorandum dated 5 Nov 98, clearly states his commander recommended (initiated) separation action for entry level performance or conduct based on the applicant’s failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program. The RE code 2C is correct based on his entry level separation with uncharacterized character of service. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by stating since separating from the Air Force, he received his basic firefighter certification and volunteered at a local fire department. He also volunteers at a horse therapy ranch for kids with mental and physical disabilities. In addition, he obtained his private pilot’s license. For most of his adult life, he has been in the security business for several companies. He took the civil service exam in hopes of being accepted into the local police academy for training. Through the trials of life, he has become a strong Christian, a physically strong individual and a mentally tough person. He was arrested in 2010 for two counts of terroristic threats however; all charges were dropped so he is looking into having it expunged or closed. He has had a couple of traffic tickets and accidents as well. He requested a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report and will forward it upon receipt. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request for change to his reenlistment eligibility. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal of the Air Force advisory, in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board found no errors in the discharge and separation process of the applicant. The Board agrees with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03513 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 24 Sep 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 3 Nov 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated.