RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03630 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service) be changed to allow him to reenlist in the Navy. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had an entry-level separation but desires to have his reentry code changed. In support of his request, the applicant provided copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 Nov 07 and was discharged on 12 Jun 08, after serving for a period of 6 months and 22 days. On 18 May 08, the applicant was notified of pending discharge action. Specifically, the commander cited failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program as the basis for discharge. Records indicate that between or about 17 Jan 08 and on or about 28 Feb 08, the applicant failed seven (7) progress checks and his Block I written test. He re-tested the Block I test and passed, but an Academic Review Board (ARB) met on 30 Jan 08 and recommended he be washed back to begin the course a second time. Between or about 28 Feb 08 and on or about 14 Apr 08, he failed three (3) progress checks and a written block test. Another ARB met on 14 Apr 08 and recommended he be eliminated from training and reclassified into another career field. On or about 16 Apr 08, he was disenrolled from the V3ABR1C631 0C1A, Satellite Command and Control Fundamentals Course, for academic reasons. His failures were attributed to an inability to grasp and comprehend the training material. The commander non-concurred with the ARB’s recommendation to reclassify him and stated the applicant made several statements to the First Sergeant and Squadron Superintendent to the effect that his religious beliefs would conflict with the Air Force’s mission. On 19 May 08 after consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf. On 4 Jun 08, the commander directed discharge at the earliest possible date. He was discharged on 12 Jun 08. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the service characterization, was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his discharge warranting a change to his character of service. DPSOS further states 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 active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service which resulted in the re-entry code of 2C on his DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. The complete AFPC/DPSOS 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 9 Jan 09 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a response (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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Docket Number BC- 2008-03630 in Executive Session on 19 February 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number BC-2008-03630: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Oct 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 12 Dec 08. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 09.