RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04238 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code 2C (involuntarily separated with honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed to allow him to reenlist. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While he served in the Air Force, he was not prepared for the academic rigor required; which affected his attitude towards training. He has since matured both personally and academically and clearly sees how he could have overcome his challenges using the guidance and support offered by his superiors. He made poor career choices and would sincerely appreciate a second chance to honorably serve his country. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 November 2010. On 13 May 2011, he was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for entry level performance or conduct. Specifically, the applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in the Aerospace Ground Engineer Apprentice course. The applicant acknowledged his right to counsel and submit matters on his behalf: he declined both. The assistant staff judge advocate found the discharge legally sufficient on 18 May 2011. One 24 May 2011, the commander directed the applicant be separated with an entry level separation. He was credited with 6 months and 10 days of active duty service and his RE code was listed as 2C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant’s RE code is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, based on his involuntary discharge and uncharacterized service. He does not provide proof of an error or injustice; rather, he states he has matured. The applicant was eliminated from training for academic failure as annotated on his Student Training Report. He also received a Letter of Counseling for missing a mandatory appointment and a Letter of Reprimand for not shaving. All counseling and rehabilitative efforts consistently failed to produce positive results. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He does not wish to prove there was an error or injustice, only an opportunity to further explain. He understands with the budget cuts in the defense department, it is easy to keep his code the same; yet, he asks for latitude. He did not perform to Air Force expectations which truly disgust him. He humbly asks for another opportunity where he can serve our great country in any of the other branches of service. He has been in contact with the Navy and can enlist immediately if his code is changed. He is asking for another chance to show that he is dependable and able to do the job. He can and will be a great asset to whichever branch is open to a committed soldier. The applicant’s complete response is at 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence submitted in his appeal that a change in his RE code is warranted. The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by the applicant. Absent persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled or appropriate regulations were not followed, we find no basis to disturb the existing record. 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 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-2012-04238 in Executive Session on 25 April 2013 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 Oct 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Nov 12.