RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 2011-04390 

 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 a “1” RE code. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He believes his RE code is unjust because he failed technical 
training and he should be given a second chance. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, and a copy of his AETC Form 125A, Record of Administrative 
Training Action. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 8 Sep 09 and was 
discharged on 26 May 10 for failing to make satisfactory progress 
in his training program. He received an honorable discharge with 
a “2C” RE code after serving 8 months and 19 days on active duty. 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force, which is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant was involuntarily 
discharged for unsatisfactory performance. He received a “2C” RE 
code based on his involuntary discharge with honorable character 
of service. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an 
error or injustice in reference to his RE code; he only states 
that he wants to be back in the military. Furthermore, everyone 


who is involuntarily separated from the Air Force with an 
honorable character of service receives a RE code of “2C”. 

 

The complete 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 23 Mar 12 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 an error or injustice. We note that 
members separated from the Air Force are furnished an RE code 
predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of 
their separation. The evidence of record indicates the applicant 
was separated for his performance. As a result, he was assigned 
an RE code of 2C. He has provided no evidence which would lead 
us to believe his separation was improper or contrary to the 
provisions of the governing instruction, or the RE code was not 
appropriately assigned. In view of the foregoing, and in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis 
exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request 
that his RE code of 2C be changed. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-04390 in Executive Session on 8 May 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 




 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 19 Mar 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 12.