RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02418
		INDEX CODE:  100.03

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to a code which will allow him to reenlist in the Air Force.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not feel the RE code of 2C was deserved because it has closed the door to his opportunities in the Air Force and the military.  He would really like to continue his career in the Air Force.

He had his own faults and wrongdoing, but put some of the blame on his superior officers.  He also felt he was discriminated against and was accused of being a racist on several occasions, which resulted in unfair punishments.

He is now wiser, more mature, and able to handle many responsibilities, and believes that he would be a wonderful asset to the Air Force, if given a second chance.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 November 2001 for a period of 4 years in the grade of airman basic.

On or about 21 Feb 02, applicant failed a room inspection. He received an AF For 341.

On or between 28 Feb 02 and 5 Mar 02, applicant showed little interest in class or military bearing. For this he received a memorandum for record (MFR).

On or about 5 Mar 02, he received an MFR for failing two block tests for course X3ABR3E731-006 (Fire Protection Apprentice).  

On or about 6 Mar 02, he received a letter of reprimand (LOR) for his lack of military bearing, test failures, and not shaving.

On or about 7 Apr 02, applicant consumed alcohol while underage.  He received an LOR for this offense.

On or about 16 Apr 02, applicant did not shave, for which he received an AF Form 341.

On or about 2 May 02, applicant was disenrolled from course X3ABR3E731-006 for misconduct.  He was not recommendation for reclassification.

On 9 May 02, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for entry level conduct, based on the incidents cited above.  

The applicant was eliminated from the Fire Protection Apprentice training course for academic deficiency after failing written test of course examination three times with scores of 68%, 68% and 68%--minimum passing score was 70%.  Prior to disenrollment, applicant was counseled concerning his performance and received individualized assistance with negative results.

The commander recommended that the applicant be given an entry-level separation.  On 13 May 02, he waived his right to consult counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf..  On 13 May 02, the staff judge advocate found the case to be legally sufficient and recommended an entry-level separation.  The discharge authority directed applicant be discharged with an entry-level separation.

On 21 May 02, applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation, by reason of “Entry Level Performance and Conduct,” and was issued an RE code of 2C.  He was credited with 6 months and 1 day of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial of the applicant’s request.  They found that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and he provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.  

They also noted that airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A 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, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  Applicant’s RE code of 2C accurately reflects that he was involuntarily separated with an entry level separation without characterization of service.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, the RE code issued was in accordance with the governing directives.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02418 in Executive Session on 2 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 04, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Aug 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Sep 04.