RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03925 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reentry (RE) Code of 2C (Involuntary honorable discharge or entry-level separation with uncharacterized service) be changed so he can reenlist in the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged because he failed to complete Technical School training. He had a chance to do great the first time and ruined it so he wants to make up for it. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 28 Dec 09. On 12 May 10, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to make formation. The LOC stated “Your lackadaisical attitude when being questioned as to why you were late gave the impression that you just didn’t care.” On 3 Jun 10, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to discharge him from the Air Force for entry level performance or conduct. The reason for this action was that he failed to progress in a required training program. Specifically, on 19 Apr 10, he failed a test with a score of 50 percent when a 70 percent was the minimum passing, and on 11 May 10, he failed the retest with a score of 55 percent. On 14 Jun 10, after consulting with a legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and waived his right to submit a statement. On 16 Jun 10, the case was found to be legally sufficient and, on 17 Jun 10, the discharge authority directed his discharge. On 18 Jun 10, the applicant was furnished an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service with a RE code of 2C, and was credited with 5 months and 21 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The record reflects the applicant was afforded an opportunity to overcome his academic deficiencies, but he failed to successfully complete the Aircraft Hydraulic Systems Apprentice Course. His performance indicated an inability to complete the more stringent requirements of the follow-on training course. The applicant’s commander stated that he does not appear to possess the Air Force core values he should for an Airman in technical training. Airmen are given an ELS with uncharacterized service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize a member’s limited service when separation is initiated within the first 180 days of active service. The applicant provided no evidence or fact warranting a change to his type of separation or RE Code. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial with respect to the applicant’s RE Code, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice. The RE Code of 2C is required based on the ELS with uncharacterized service and the applicant does not provide any evidence of an error or injustice. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He made a mistake. He was given a second chance to continue on in his training after failing the first time, and he messed that up too. When he enlisted, he was just barely past the age of 19 and didn’t have the skills to succeed. However, his experience working at Target has made him a better person. He now has the skills to succeed in the Air Force, and since he received an honorable discharge his earlier failure should not cause his separation to be permanent (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ 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, including his rebuttal to the advisories, in judging the merits of the case. However, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 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 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 applicant was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with the application. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03925 in Executive Session on 11 Apr 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03925 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 12, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 Oct 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 29 Nov 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 12. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Dec 12. Panel Chair