RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02346
		INDEX CODE 110.03, 100.06
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed and he be reinstated in the Air Force with reclassification into another career field.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His civil rights were violated and he was not given an equal opportunity to be a career airman.  The racial discrimination at his base made it hard for African Americans to succeed.  He was harassed by the Security Forces (SF) on his way to class and accused of assaulting another airman.  This harassment resulted in stress and lack of concentration, causing him to fail his exams.  Once he failed the course, he was told he was no longer under investigation.  He was not allowed to be reclassified because he is African American, while non-African American females were allowed to be reclassified.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years on 9 Dec 03.  He entered training at Goodfellow AFB, TX, on 4 Feb 04, as an Intelligence Operations Apprentice, Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 1N011.

An Air Education and Training Command (AETC) letter, dated 6 Apr 04, outlined new force-shaping reclassification guidelines because an over-strength of between 16,000-24,000 was anticipated for Fiscal Year 2004.  Separation was recommended for those airmen who exhibited disciplinary/motivational problems or who did not exhibit strong potential for Air Force service warranting reclassification.

On AF Form 3005, Open Training Enlistment Agreement, and AF Form 3007, Guaranteed Training Enlistment Agreement, trainees who fail to complete technical training acknowledge:  “If I fail to complete training because of academic deficiency, misconduct, disqualifications I have concealed, or other actions for which I am responsible, I will have voided this enlistment agreement as it pertains to my AFS [Air Force Specialty] guarantee and I may be involuntarily discharged or reclassified into another AFS based on the needs of the Air Force, although my background and preferences will be considered.”  The applicant acknowledged this understanding when he signed AF Form 3007 on 9 Dec 03.

The Student Training Report indicates the applicant had course failures and was washed back so that he would have opportunities to study and understand course material.  The applicant apparently had “issues outside of school” and the instructor had concerns about whether the applicant was using slides from other classes for his presentation.  The applicant’s weaknesses included talking about instructors behind their backs, exaggeration, an indolent attitude towards school tasks and studies, minimal task completion, and no observable leadership traits.  The applicant met uniform standards and exhibited understanding of proper military customs and courtesies.  

The Record of Administrative Training Action, AETC Form 125A, dated 1 Jun 04, indicated the applicant was eliminated from the 1N0 course for academic reasons, i.e., three course failures through seven blocks of instruction.  The Record reported the applicant demonstrated an inability to comprehend the basics of the intelligence career field, struggled academically, and raised questions concerning his integrity and ability to maintain the high level of personal professionalism and conduct required in the Air Force.  The Record noted the applicant had numerous negative memoranda for the record written by both instructors and fellow classmates.  The applicant expressed a strong desire to remain in the Air Force and transfer to the Fire Protection Course.  However, the flight commander recommended discharge.  The squadron commander concurred.

On 15 Jun 04, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend discharge, without reclassification, for unsatisfactory performance.  The applicant’s three course failures and inability to comprehend the basics of the intelligence career field were cited.  After consulting counsel, the applicant submitted a statement indicating he began to lose focus due to problems he was having outside of school.  He described how he was taken from his dorm bed, handcuffed and told he was being investigated for an assault on an airman.  The month-long investigation cleared him but he felt he had already been convicted of a crime he did not commit.  He could not focus on his studies because of the repeated questioning by SF.  He asked to be retained and placed in another career field.

A 22 Jun 04 legal review noted the following:  The applicant was questioned by the SF on 4 Apr 04 at 1017 hours on a Sunday about an assault incident.  On 5 Apr 04, he saw his Area Defense Counsel (ADC) and missed only a small portion of a lecture, which the instructor reaccomplished on 6 Apr 04.  This questioning was most likely a contributing factor to the applicant’s second course failure on 7 Apr 04, but was not a factor in his first course failure on 24 Mar 04 or in his third course failure on 4 May 04.  After failing, the applicant was counseled and asked if any outside factors were affecting him or adding to his failure, to which he replied in the negative.  The applicant was recommended for reclassification due to his inability to complete his first career field but reclassification was disapproved per the AETC Force Reshaping Reclassification Guidance Letter, dated 6 Apr 04.  Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were inappropriate.  The discharge was found legally sufficient and an honorable discharge was recommended.

The discharge authority approved the honorable discharge without P&R on 25 Jun 04.

On 1 Jul 04, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of airman for unsatisfactory performance after 5 months and 23 days of active service.  He was issued an RE code of “2C” (Involuntarily Separated with an Honorable Discharge) and a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JHJ” (Unsatisfactory Performance).  His DD Form 214 indicates he had prior active service of 6 months and 23 days; however, this may be an error because his records contain no documents verifying this.  In fact, his 9 Dec 03 enlisted papers identify him as a “non-prior service” member.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS concludes that, based on the documentation on file, the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant has not submitted evidence of error or injustice or facts warranting reclassification or a change to his RE code.  Denial is therefore recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 Sep 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant partial relief.  The applicant has not established to our satisfaction that he was the victim of racial bias as he alleges.  Further, the available records appear to indicate his attitude and performance were less than stellar.  Other than the applicant’s own assertions, he has presented no credible evidence his discharge without reclassification was unfounded, especially given the guidance outlined in the 6 Apr 04 AETC letter.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis on which to reinstate the applicant or provide him with RE and SPD codes that would facilitate immediate reenlistment.  However, we acknowledge the assault investigation may have had an impact on his ability to focus on his training and testing.  We believe a fair solution would be to award the applicant a waiverable RE code; in other words, an RE code from the “3” series which would give him an opportunity to apply for enlistment in the Reserves.  If he has desirable skills and is otherwise acceptable, the Reserves may elect to waive his ineligibility and allow him to reenlist.  We must emphasize that whether or not he is successful will depend on the needs of the service, and the Board’s recommendation in no way guarantees he will be allowed to enlist in the Reserves.  We therefore recommend his reenlistment code be changed to “3K” and, for the sake of consistency, his SPD code be changed to “JFF.”

4.	The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, in conjunction with his honorable discharge on 1 July 2004, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility code of “3K”, rather than “2C”, and a Separation Program Designator code of “JFF”, rather than “JHJ”. 

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 18 November 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02346 was considered:

   Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated (received 23 Jul 04), w/atchs.
   Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Aug 04.
   Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Sep 04.

AFBCMR BC-2004-02346

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to     , be corrected to show that, in conjunction with his honorable discharge on 1 July 2004, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility code of “3K”, rather than “2C”, and a Separation Program Designator code of “JFF”, rather than “JHJ”.