RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00703
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) and separation codes be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like his RE code of “2C” changed to reenlist  into  another  branch
of the service.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  statement  from  his
mother dated 26 March 2002.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 September 2001 in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years.

On 17 December 2001, the applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent
to initiate discharge action against him  for  entry  level  performance  or
conduct.  The specific reason was as follows:









      You have failed to make satisfactory progress in a  required  training
program.   Specifically,  you  were  eliminated  from  the  Security  Forces
technical training course for Weapons Failure after failing  to  qualify  on
the M-16 A2 Rifle after six attempts with scores of 20, 19, 18, 20, 17,  and
11 - minimum passing is 25.  Prior to your disenrollment you were  counseled
concerning your weapons failure and received 4 hours Special  Individualized
Assistance.  Efforts to improve your  performance  have  met  with  negative
results.  As a  result,  you  were  disenrolled  from  the  Security  Forces
technical training course on 7 December 2001.

On 18 December 2001, the Assistant Staff  Judge  Advocate  recommended  that
the applicant be separated from the service with an Entry Level Separation.

On 19 December 2001, the applicant’s discharge was approved.

Applicant was discharged on 9 January 2002, in the  grade  of  airman  basic
with an Entry Level Performance and Conduct discharge, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-3208.  He served a total of 3 months and 25 days of  total  active
military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial.   They  indicated  that  based   upon   the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was  consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.
Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound  discretion  of   the
discharge authority.

Airmen   are   given    entry-level    separation/uncharacterized    service
characterization when separation is initiated  in  the  first  180  days  of
continuous active service.   The  Department  of  Defense  determined  if  a
member served less than 180 days continuous  active  service,  it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited  service.
 Therefore, his uncharacterized character  of  service  is  correct  and  in
accordance with Department of Defense and Air Force instructions.  An entry-
level/uncharacterized separation  should  not  be  viewed  as  negative  and
should not be confused with other types of separation.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant  separated
9 January 2002, after serving 3 months and  25  days  active  service.   The
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated  with  an
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without  characterization  of
service” is correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 June 2002, copies of the evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant
for review and response within thirty  (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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  an  error  or  an  injustice  warranting  a  change  in   the
applicant’s RE code.  We took notice of the applicant's complete  submission
in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the  opinions  and
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.   The  Board  believes   that   responsible   officials   applied
appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and the  Board  does  not
find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were  violated  or  that
applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the  time  of
discharge.  The Board notes that on similar cases we’d normally  remove  the
words “and conduct” from the narrative reason for separation when  there  is
no misconduct cited  in  the  discharge  file.   However,  it  appears  that
according to the applicant’s training records, he may have attempted to  not
qualify on the firing range.  In our opinion this could be interpreted as  a
form of misconduct, and as such, we find no basis to  change  the  narrative
reason for separation.   Therefore,  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 AFBCMR Docket Number  02-00703
in Executive Session on 10 September 2002, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
                  Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 February 2002, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 March 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 June 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 June 2002.




                                JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                Panel Chair