RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01893 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His entry-level separation with uncharacterized service be changed or upgraded. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: An upgrade is justified by the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service), as reflected on his AF IMT 100. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 01 Oct 13. On 21 Jan 14, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his entry-level separation for unsatisfactory duty performance; specifically, failure to make satisfactory progress in military training or for performance of primary duties. The reason for this action is that on or about 7 Jan 14, the applicant self-eliminated from the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) Preliminary Course. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel. The base legal office reviewed the discharge and found it legally sufficient. According to the applicant’s AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, the pending RE code reflected was 2C, based on the type of separation. On 24 Jan 14, the applicant was furnished an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service, issued an RE code of 2C, and credited with 3 months and 24 days of total active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Airmen are given entry–level separation/uncharacterized service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 days continuous service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service. The applicant self-eliminated from his training course which constituted failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program. Therefore, the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code and narrative reason for separation are correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant received an RE code of 2C, based on his entry-level separation with uncharacterized service as required by AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF. 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 18 Aug 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While the applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he was issued a reentry (RE) code of 2C, we do not find this argument sufficient to conclude that corrective action is warranted. In this respect, we note the comments of AFPC/DPSOA indicating that AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the USAF, indicates that the RE code the applicant received is the appropriate code for his circumstance. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-01893 in Executive Session on 28 Jan 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 26 Jun 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 Jul 14. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 14.