RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01180 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her reentry code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” be changed to a waiverable code. 2. Her separation code of JGA (Entry-level performance and conduct) be corrected. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She would like to enlist in military service. Her separation code is incorrect and indicates she was pregnant. She had some problems with her academic class scores; however, she was never reprimanded. She had a hard time learning the program but tried her hardest. She is currently enrolled in school and excels in her classes. No supporting documentation was submitted. The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 9 Mar 10, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 10 Jul 10, the applicant’s Air Education and Training Command (AETC) flight chief recommended she be discharged for academic deficiency and performance. Specifically, she failed Block II with a 65 percent score (passing score 72 percent). She was allowed to wash back and retest again. She failed again with a score of 68 percent. Immediately after, without authorization from her instructor, she illegally retested again scoring 76 percent. On 2 Aug 10, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was recommending she be separated from the Air Force under the provisions of Air Force Policy Directive 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, paragraph 5.22.2.3 for failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program. On 4 Aug 10, the Assistant Judge Advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged without an offer of probation and rehabilitation. The discharge authority approved the recommended separation. On 9 Aug 10, the applicant was discharged with an entry level separation and uncharacterized service. She served five months and one day on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. The applicant states she was discharged because of pregnancy; however, this is not the case. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel record, the applicant was discharged for not making satisfactory progress in a required training program. DPSOS states the discharge to include the service characterization was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. In addition, the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the processing of her discharge. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of her request to change her RE code. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code is not associated with her behavior or pregnancy, but is driven by her entry level separation and uncharacterized character of service. 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 29 Jul 11, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 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 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 this application in Executive Session on 26 Jan 12, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-01180: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 1 Jun 11. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 Jul 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 11. Panel Chair