RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04219 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected as follows so she may qualify for enlistment into the US Naval Reserve: a. Her uncharacterized service be upgraded to honorable. b. Her separation program designator (SPD) code, separation authority, and narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect she was discharged for a hardship condition which no longer exists. c. Her Reentry (RE) code of 2C (Entry-level separation without character of service) be changed to 4A (Separated for hardship or dependency reasons). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The conditions which precipitated her discharge from the Air Force no longer exist and the requested changes would more accurately characterize her military service and discharge. She suffered a hardship in that her husband at the time was not willing to cooperate or support her being in the military. The resultant stress affected her performance during technical training and resulted in her involuntary separation. She has since divorced her husband and respectfully requests a second chance to complete what she had once started. In support of her request, the applicant provides an expanded statement and copies of her DD Form 214, excerpts from her military personnel records, college transcripts, divorce decree, and character references. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate she enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 Jan 04 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of six years. On 13 May 04, the applicant’s commander notified her of her intent to recommend her entry-level separation for entry-level performance and conduct for her failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program. The reason for the action was the applicant’s elimination from the Communications- Computer Systems Operations Apprentice Course due to academic deficiencies; specifically, for twice failing the Block 2 test with scores of 58 percent and 40 percent, respectively. On 13 May 04, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, waived her right to consult with legal counsel, and elected to not submit statements in her behalf. On 28 May 04, the case was found to be legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation on 1 Jun 04. On 8 Jun 04, the applicant was furnished an entry- level separation with uncharacterized service for entry-level performance and conduct and was credited with 4 months and 26 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s service characterization is correct as reflected on her DD Form 214. Airmen are given entry-level separation with uncharacterized service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined it would be unfair, to the Department or the member, to characterize a member’s limited service when such service is less than 180 days. Therefore, the applicant’s uncharacterized service, which resulted in the RE code of 2C, is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. Although the applicant states the situation which precipitated her discharge no longer exists, it does not change the basis for which she was discharged. There is no evidence of any error or injustice in the processing of the discharge action. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge; to include the character of service, separation authority, SPD code, RE code, and narrative reason for separation; was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her RE code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s RE code of 2C is required in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the US Air Force, based on her entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. Although the applicant wants an RE code of 4A (Separated for hardship or dependency reasons), she was not separated for a hardship and the 4A RE code does not apply. Additionally, RE codes are prioritized with 2-series RE codes having priority over 4, 3, or 1-series codes (in that order). As such, even if the applicant was furnished an entry-level separation for a hardship condition, she would have still been issued an RE code of 2C to denote that she was furnished an entry-level separation. A complete copy of the AFPC/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 6 May 11 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge process. Based on the evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s entry-level separation for her failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and within the commander’s discretionary authority. She has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe her entry-level separation with uncharacterized service was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing directive, or the RE and SPD codes issued in conjunction with her entry-level separation, were erroneous or inappropriately assigned. Therefore, absent evidence the applicant was not afforded rights to which she was entitled, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04219 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 23 Mar 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 15 Apr 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 11.