RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02832
            INDEX CODE:  100

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from RE 2C  to  RE 1
so that he can have the opportunity to  join  the  Air  Force  Reserve
Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) cross enrollment program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant makes no contentions on his DD Form 149.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 Apr 94, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

Applicant has two Enlisted Performance  Reports  (EPRs)  with  overall
ratings of 4 and 2 (referral), respectively.

On 10 Jul 96, the applicant was notified by his section commander that
he was recommending applicant be discharged from  the  Air  Force  for
unsatisfactory  performance,  specifically,  failure   in   on-the-job
training.  The commander’s reasons for this action were:

       a.     On  24 May  96,  applicant  failed   his   end-of-course
examination (scored 38, passing was 65) as evidenced by  a  report  of
course examination dated 24 May 96.

       b.     On  9 Feb  96,  applicant   failed   his   end-of-course
examination (scored 39, passing was 65) as evidence  by  a  report  of
course examination dated 9 Feb 96.

In the notification memorandum,  the  commander  also  indicated  that
applicant’s supervisors provided verbal and written counseling on  the
importance of gaining the knowledge needed to pass  the  end-of-course
examination.  He was also administered the Air Force  Reading  Ability
Test in which he satisfactorily passed with a score of 10.8  when  the
Air Force standard was 9.9 after he failed the test  the  first  time.
Further, applicant was given two hours of supervised study time during
duty hours along with practice tests to help him  familiarize  himself
on taking Air Force tests.  The commander indicated that these efforts
did not produce positive results.

On 10 Jul 96,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification
memorandum indicating that he  understood  that  he  had  a  right  to
consult counsel, submit statements in his own behalf, or waiver either
of the above rights.  He acknowledged that he received copies  of  the
documents to be forwarded to the separation authority  in  support  of
the recommendation for his discharge and that he  had  been  given  an
appointment to consult military legal counsel.  He  also  acknowledged
that this action may result in his discharge from the Air  Force  with
either a general or an honorable discharge and  that  his  failure  to
consult counsel or to submit statements would constitute a  waiver  of
his right to do so.  Applicant waived his right to legal counsel.

On 18 Jul 96, the commander reviewed the applicant’s case file and the
Staff Judge Advocate’s review and indicated  that  the  applicant  was
unable to fulfill the requirements of on-the-job training and would be
discharged with an honorable discharge for Unsatisfactory Performance,
specifically, Failure to Progress in On-the-Job Training under AFI 36-
3208, paragraph 5.26.3.  The commander  also  indicated  that  further
rehabilitative efforts were impractical and unlikely to be successful.
 For these reasons, further rehabilitation was denied.

On 19 Jul 96, the applicant was discharged from the  Air  Force  under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208  (Unsatisfactory  Performance)  with  an
honorable characterization of service in the  grade  of  airman  first
class and an RE code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an  honorable
discharge; or  entry  level  separation  without  characterization  of
service).  He was credited with 2 years,  3  months,  and  6  days  of
active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Special  Programs  &  BCMR  Manager,  AFPC/DPPAES,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the RE code 2C is correct.  The type of
discharge applicant received drove assignment of the RE code.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  and  provided  a  two-page
response in which he states that an injustice has been done in denying
the redemption in the scholastic area by discharging him with an RE 2.
  The  reason  for  his  discharge  was   his   failure   to   proceed
scholastically in the Air Force.  He does not feel that he  should  be
punished forever because of his academic abilities in  the  past.   He
has surpassed the scholastic ability of that period in his life.   His
administrative scholastic discharge should  have  no  bearing  on  his
current educational status and desire of military participation today.
 He feels that the Air Force  would  benefit  in  having  him  in  the
Officer Corps through ROTC not only  because  of  his  enthusiasm  for
military service but also because of the achievements he has made.

Applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  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  probable  error  or  injustice.   We  reviewed  the
applicant’s  entire  record  and  the  circumstances  surrounding  the
discharge in 1996.  If, as he asserts, he has surpassed the scholastic
ability of that period in his life and overcome his  difficulty,  then
we applaud him.  However, the RE code is correct based  on  the  facts
that existed at the time of  his  discharge  and  we  noted  that  his
service characterization was honorable.  Therefore, we have  no  basis
on which to make any further changes to the record; thus, we must deny
the request.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 July 1999, under the provisions of  Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Oscar A. Goldfarb, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                  Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Oct 98.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 16 Oct 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Nov 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   OSCAR A. GOLDFARB
                                   Panel Chair