RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01940 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His reentry (RE) code of 2C which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge” be changed so that he can serve in the Air National Guard (ANG). 2. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA). (Entitlement verified – will be administratively corrected) _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He failed his career development courses (CDCs) over 11 years ago. He was young and it was his first time away from home; he made some poor choices and did not study as he should have. He was a good airman and never got into any trouble. He is very grateful for the honorable discharge, but would like to serve again in the ANG. He has two brothers who serve in the Air Force and would like to serve with them. In support of his request, the applicant provides letters of support from his employer and two brothers. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 Feb 98, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years, as a Supply Management Apprentice. On 13 Mar 00, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory duty performance due to his failure to progress in on-the-job training. The reason for the proposed action was the applicant failed his CDC end of course (EOD) examination on two occasions with scores of 61 and 64 respectively; the minimum passing score was 65. On 13 Mar 00, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and waived his right to consult legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. The base legal office found the case legally sufficient to support the separation, and on 23 Mar 00, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed an honorable discharge. On 24 Mar 00, the applicant was discharged by reason of unsatisfactory performance, and received an RE code of 2C. He served on active duty for a period of 2 years, 1 month and 20 days. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant received counseling on several occasions and was afforded ample opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. DPSOS found no error or injustice in the processing of the discharge action. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE code “2C” is correct based on his involuntary separation with an honorable characterization of service. Each component of the military decides which RE codes they will or will not waive if a prior service member is otherwise eligible. These policies are governed by recruiting services and may change over time. At this time, RE code “2C” is a waiverable code under the Air Force prior service program; however, this does not mean everyone with a RE code of 2C will be granted a waiver. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 2 Dec 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (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 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. No evidence has been provided to reflect he was not treated fairly and properly by the Air Force and all procedures were followed. Absent persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to change his RE code. Therefore, aside from the administrative correction noted above, we find no basis upon which to recommend further relief in this case. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Docket Number BC-2011-01940 in Executive Session on 18 Jan 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2011-01940 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 May 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 25 Oct 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 28 Nov 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 11. Panel Chair