RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02685 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ 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 reenter the Air National Guard (ANG). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He never had any discrepancies in the military, other than failing his second test in Technical Training School. He wishes to join the ANG and to continue to serve his country. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his Air Force Information Management Tool 100, Request and Authorization for Separation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force, who entered active duty on 12 January 2010 in the grade of airman basic (E-1). According to his discharge file, he was discharged effective 28 May 2010, for failing to perform his assigned duties by not making satisfactory progress in the Ophthalmic Apprentice course. He received an uncharacterized entry-level separation with an RE code “2C” and a narrative reason for separation of “Entry Level Performance and Conduct.” He served 4 months and 17 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days of continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. Therefore, the uncharacterized service, which resulted in the applicant receiving an RE code of “2C” is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force Instructions. DPSOS indicates that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was appropriately administered and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code of “2C” is required per Air Force Instruction 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, chapter 3, based on his entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. The applicant has not provided proof of an error or injustice in reference to his RE code. DPSOA indicates that each component of the military determines their own eligibility criteria for accepting prior service personnel back into the service and have the right to change their criteria at anytime to meet their individual needs. It is not the RE code that is preventing the applicant from being eligible for reentry, but each components policy in reference to RE codes. Circumventing the current screening policies of the military by changing the applicant’s RE code would not be appropriate. The Air Force active duty component currently can waive RE code “2C” for members who were separated for academic failure, if they meet all other prior service reentry requirements. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 January 2011, 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice in regard to the applicant’s request for a change to his RE code. We find the RE code which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and we do not find this code to be in error or unjust. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s request be denied. Nevertheless, we believe that based on the total circumstances of this case a measure of relief is warranted. We note that while the discharge action taken against the applicant and the characterization of service he was given were in accordance with the applicable instruction, the narrative reason for his entry-level separation; i.e., entry-level performance and conduct, does not accurately reflect the reason for the applicant’s separation. We note that the word “conduct” could be misconstrued to infer that the applicant’s separation for academic deficiency was also due to misconduct. While the applicant may have had problems progressing in the required technical training courses, the evidence of record does not reflect any misconduct. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we believe the narrative reason for separation should be corrected to remove the words “and conduct.” We believe with this correction the applicant’s record will more accurately reflect the real reason for his separation. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the words “and conduct” be deleted from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02685 in Executive Session on 19 April 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010- 02685 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 10, with atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 4 Nov 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 1 Dec 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11.