RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03154
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.02, 100.03
            COUNSEL:  DAV

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation  be  changed  from  unsatisfactory
performance to one that would not impair his  ability  to  serve,  and
that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of 2C be changed to RE-1A.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was assigned to apprentice aerospace propulsion.   He  was  in  the
wrong environment.  He needed to be assigned where he fit in,  not  at
the shop maintenance level.  He was not given a  career  field  choice
and was threatened with court-martial if he stayed in  as  a  mechanic
and failed or separated.

Applicant’s request and documentary evidence submitted in  support  of
his appeal are at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 November 1988, applicant enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force,
under the Guaranteed Training Enlistment Program (GTEP), for a  period
of four years.  The terms of the enlistment agreement, signed  by  the
applicant on 15 November 1988,  reflect  he  was  guaranteed  training
(either technical school or on-the-job (OJT)  training)  and  a  first
regular duty assignment in  Air  Force  Specialty  45430,  Jet  Engine
Mechanic.  The  record  contains  one  referral  Enlisted  Performance
Report  reflecting  an  overall  promotion   recommendation   of   “1”
(Unsatisfactory Performer.  Not recommended for promotion).

On 18 September 1989, the squadron commander initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant for unsatisfactory performance.
 The specific reason for the proposed action was  applicant’s  failure
to  progress  in  OJT.   The  commander  further  stated  that  before
recommending the discharge, he, the first  sergeant,  and  applicant’s
supervisors verbally counseled the applicant concerning  exactly  what
the Air Force, the organization, and everyone concerned,  expected  of
him as an active duty member in the USAF.  Applicant was  given  every
opportunity to show that he was able  to  meet  Air  Force  standards.
Discharge was in the best interest of the Quality  Force  Program  and
the  Air  Force.   The  commander  did  not  recommend  probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 18 September 1989, applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge
notification and that military legal counsel had been  made  available
to him.  At that time, he waived his option  to  consult  counsel  and
waived  his  right  to  submit  statements  for   consideration.    On
18 September 1989, the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  case  file
legally sufficient.  On 20 September  1989,  the  discharge  authority
directed that the applicant be honorably discharged, without probation
and rehabilitation.

On 25 September 1989, applicant was honorably discharged by reason  of
unsatisfactory performance and issued an RE Code of 2C  (involuntarily
separated under AFR  39-10  with  an  honorable  discharge).   He  was
credited with 10 months and 11 days of active duty service.

On 27 October 1997, the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)
considered and  denied  an  application  submitted  by  the  applicant
requesting that the reason for discharge be changed.  A  copy  of  the
AFDRB Hearing Record is included with the  applicant’s  submission  at
Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Separations Branch,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial, stating the applicant did not submit  evidence  or
identify specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts
which warrant  a  change  in  his  narrative  reason  for  separation.
(Exhibit C)

The Special Programs and BCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES, stated that the RE
Code of 2C is correct.  The type of discharge drove assignment of  the
RE Code.  (Exhibit D)

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  applicant  and
counsel on 25 January 1999 for review and comment within 30 days.   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 not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of
the available records, we found no evidence that the narrative  reason
for discharge or the RE Code  assigned  at  the  time  of  applicant’s
separation were in error.  Nevertheless, in reviewing the  applicant’s
overall record of performance, it appears that despite his efforts  to
absorb all of the general maintenance principles and apply them to his
daily duties as a  jet  engine  mechanic,  he  lacked  the  mechanical
aptitude to understand and retain what he was  taught.   A  deficiency
that, in his supervisor’s opinion, should have been identified  during
technical school.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of any
other derogatory information in his record, we believe it would be  an
injustice for the applicant to continue to suffer the adverse  effects
of the narrative reason  for  discharge  and  the  assigned  RE  Code.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, we believe that  the  narrative
reason for discharge should be changed to “Miscellaneous Reasons,” and
his RE Code changed to 3A.  RE-3A is a code which can  be  waived  for
prior service enlistment consideration, provided applicant  meets  all
other requirements for enlistment  under  an  existing  prior  service
program.  Accordingly, we recommend that the records be  corrected  as
indicated below.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 25 September 1989,
he was discharged for “Miscellaneous  Reasons,”  with  a  Reenlistment
Eligibility (RE) Code of 3A and a separation code of KND.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
      Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Jan 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 7 Jan 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Jan 99.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 98-03154




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to [APPLICANT] be corrected to show that on 25
September 1989, he was discharged for “Miscellaneous Reasons,” with
a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code of 3A and a separation code of
KND.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency