RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03562

            INDEX CODE:  100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so that he  can  serve  in
the Air Force Reserve.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He wants to continue his military career in the Air Force Reserve.   He  has
attached his letter that went to the Reserve recruiter and they are  willing
to take him on board if he can get his reentry code changed. He  got  a  bad
deal.  He would be a  great  benefit  for  the  Reserve  if  his  code  were
changed.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 Jun 93, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF)  for  a
period of four years in the  grade  of  airman  basic.   On  14 Nov  96,  he
reenlisted in the Air Force for a period  of  six  years  in  the  grade  of
senior airman.

Applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              7 Feb 95                     4
             18 Oct 95                     4
             18 Oct 96                     5
             18 Oct 97                     5
             18 Oct 98                     4
             30 Jun 99                     3
             30 Jun 00                     5
              1 Feb 01                     3 (Referral Rpt)

On  17 Apr  01,  the  applicant  was  notified  that   his   commander   was
recommending that he be discharged from the  Air  Force  for  Unsatisfactory
Performance under the provisions of paragraph 5.26.3,  Failure  to  Progress
in On-The-Job Training.   The  commander  was  recommending  that  applicant
receive an honorable discharge.  The reasons  for  the  commander’s  actions
were as follows:

      a.  On 24 Nov 99, he was enrolled in Career Development  Course  (CDC)
Number 2T071.  This course consisted of two volumes of study and was  to  be
successfully completed no later than 26 Nov 00.  His supervisor and  trainer
explained the course to him  and  how  the  administration  of  said  course
operated.  He was told that  65%  was  a  minimum  passing  score  and  also
explained to him how to get help if he had  questions  about  the  CDC.   On
9 Dec 99, he was issued Volume  I  of  the  7-level  CDC.   In  Feb  00,  he
completed Volume I and was issued Volume  II.   A  review  of  his  training
records was made that day and several items were closed out.  On 14 Feb  00,
another assessment was made and several other items  were  closed  out.   It
appeared he was moving along satisfactorily on his CDC.  On  30 Mar  00,  he
reviewed Volume II and missed only one question on the review  quiz,  making
a score of 99%.  His trainer reviewed over the missed item and  believed  he
was ready for the end-of-course test.  On 31 Aug 00,  his  training  records
were reviewed and the final test was scheduled.  In Sep 00, he had  shoulder
surgery, but it was determined that this  should  not  hinder  his  studies.
His first final testing was completed on 1 Nov 00.  The score on  that  test
was 64%.  He had failed the first testing.

      b.  In an effort to study and pass the second final  testing,  he  and
his trainer reviewed the CDC course material.  There was no indication of  a
problem with comprehension.  He scored well on the exercises  given  to  him
and any missed items were gone over and discussed.  He was assigned  to  job
duties relating to his CDCs and also was provided  study  time.   On  19 Dec
00, he took the second final test over CDC Course Number 2T071.   He  scored
60% on that test.  A passing score was 65%.  He had failed the second  final
testing.

       c.  He  had  been  briefed  on  his  ineligibility   for   promotion,
reenlistment, and reassignment while withdrawn  from  training.   Air  Force
Form 2096, signed by him, indicated he  understood  that  his  removal  from
upgrade training (UGT) may result in separation under the provisions of  AFI
36-3208.

On  19 Apr  01,  after  consulting  with  counsel,   applicant   offered   a
conditional  waiver  of  the  rights  associated  with   an   administrative
discharge board hearing.  The waiver was contingent upon his receipt  of  no
less than an honorable discharge, if the  recommendation  of  his  discharge
was approved.

On  30 Apr  01,  the  commander  accepted  the  conditional  waiver  of  the
applicant and directed  that  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for
Unsatisfactory Performance under  AFPD  36-32  and  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph
5.26.3, Failure to Progress in On-The-Job  Training.   The  characterization
of the discharge would be honorable and  probation  and  rehabilitation  was
denied.

On 14 May 01, the applicant was discharged from  the  Air  Force  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Unsatisfactory  Performance)  with  an  honorable
characterization of service and an RE code of  2C  (Involuntarily  separated
with  an  honorable   discharge;   or   entry   level   separation   without
characterization of service)  in  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant.   He  was
credited with 7 years, 11 months, and 8 days of active service.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application  and  recommends  denial.   They  state
that the applicant did not submit any new evidence or  identify  any  errors
or injustices that occurred in  the  discharge  processing.   Based  on  the
documentation in the file, the discharge was consistent with the  procedural
and substantive requirements of  the  discharge  regulation  at  that  time.
Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound  discretion  of   the
discharge authority.

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

AFPC/DPPAE also reviewed this application and indicated that the RE code  of
2C is correct.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  provided  letters  of
recommendation, a letter from his congressman, an  application  for  an  Air
Force Reserve position, and a letter from the commander of the 654th  Combat
Logistics Support Squadron.  He states that he  was  hurt  while  on  active
duty and was made to test for 7-level upgrade training while  on  medication
and was told he had to test.  He asks that he be  given  the  chance  to  go
into the Air Force Reserve and give 100% to them and his country.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit F.


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.  The Secretary of  the  Air  Force
has statutory authority to promulgate rules and  regulations  governing  the
administration of the Air Force.  In the exercise of that authority, he  has
determined that members separated from the Air Force would be  furnished  an
RE code predicated upon the quality of their service  and  circumstances  of
their separation.  At the time an RE code is assigned, it reflects  the  Air
Force position regarding whether or not, or under  what  circumstances,  the
individual should be allowed to reenlist.  There has been  no  showing  that
the Secretary abused this discretionary authority or that the particular  RE
code assigned was contrary  to  the  prevailing  directive.   Based  on  the
foregoing, and in the absence of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application


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  01-03562  in
Executive Session on 26 March 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                  Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Nov 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 Feb 02.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Feb 02.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Feb 02, w/atch.





                                       PHILIP SHEUERMAN

                                       Panel Chair