RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03262 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of “2C – Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry-level separation without characterization of service,” be changed to allow him to reenter the military. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was eliminated from Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Preliminary Training after failing classroom stress-tests. He is able and willing to fulfill his original contract to the Air Force in any capacity necessary. He met all of the requirements for enlistment, to include a National Security Clearance. He still desires to serve his country. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; Request and Authorization for Separation; Certificate of Training; Security Clearance Receipt; and Oath of Enlistment. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty on 24 August 2010 to train as an EOD Helper, Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 3E811. He was eliminated from the EOD Preliminary Course for academic failure after failing two Block Tests and failing to make satisfactory progress. On 8 December 2010, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend him for an entry-level separation under the provisions of Air Force Program Directive (AFPD) 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and; Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Reenlistments in the USAF, paragraph 5.22.2.3, (failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program). The applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent and waived his rights to consult counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf. After the case was found to be legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed the applicant be administratively separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation. The applicant received an uncharacterized, entry-level separation effective 20 December 2010, in the grade of airman basic (E-1). His DD Form 214 reflects his RE code as “2C” and a narrative reason for separation as “Entry Level Performance or Conduct.” He served 3 months and 27 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states the applicant’s RE Code of “2C” is required based on his entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. The applicant does not provide evidence of an error or injustice in reference to his RE Code. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: After volunteering to serve and successfully completing basic training, he was released from active duty and sent home. His goal was to train for a career with the EOD team. Since returning home, he has been pursuing a college degree with hopes to return to the military service. His local recruiters have tried to help him reenter the Reserves as a start, but he has found he is not eligible to return in any capacity due to his “2C” classification. It appears that volunteering to serve with EOD has negatively affected his ability to serve our military in any capacity, which he feels is an injustice. He offered to serve in any capacity available, but his leaders indicated that due to reduction in forces, this would not be possible. He enjoyed his military experience, embraced the military lifestyle and culture, and still has a lot to offer our country. He is competent, physically fit, responsible, and a very dependable team member. He would like to pursue officer training if allowed to reenter. The applicant’s complete rebuttal 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 timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we believe that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air Force, the RE code assigned was proper and in compliance with the appropriate instructions. Therefore, we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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-2013-03262 in Executive Session on 1 April 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03262: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 3 Sep 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Feb 14. Panel Chair 3