RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04730 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her reentry (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an 
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without 
characterization of service) be changed to a code that would 
enable her reenlistment. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Because of her RE code, she is unable to reenlist in the Air 
Force or enlist in another branch of service. 

 

She was an airman with very few bad marks on her record. 

 

In support of the appeal, the applicant provides a copy of her 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant began her military service on 10 Aug 10 and was 
promoted to airman (E-2) effective and with a date of rank (DOR) 
of 10 Feb 11. 

 

On 15 Apr 11, her commander notified her that he was initiating 
administrative discharge proceedings against her for 
unsatisfactory duty performance. The applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the Letter of Notification (LON) and indicated that 
she understood her right to consult counsel and submit 
statements on her own behalf, but waived both. The reasons for 
the action were that she failed to perform her assigned duties 
by not making satisfactory progress in the Aerospace Medical 
Service Apprentice (Phase 1) course. Specifically, she failed 
the National Registry Emergency Medical Technician written exam 
four times. Prior to her disenrollment, she received 55 hours 
of additional instruction and counseling and attended additional 


classes at the Wing Learning and Development Center. However, 
all efforts failed to produce positive results. 

 

On 18 Apr 11, the discharge action was found legally sufficient 
and, on 26 Apr 11, she was honorably discharged for 
Unsatisfactory Performance after serving for 8 months and 
17 days of total active service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA notes she was discharged only 
after reasonable efforts at rehabilitation had been made. The 
RE code 2C is required in accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment 
in the USAF, and she has not provided any evidence 
of an error or injustice with regard to its assignation. 

 

DPSOA’s complete 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 13 Jan 12 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 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 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-2011-04730 in Executive Session on 15 May 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 
 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Nov 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 12.