RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03087
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C to 1.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like his RE code changed  to  reenlist  into  the  Air  Force.   He
indicates that he successfully completed basic training, however,  while  in
technical school for Security Forces he had difficulty passing the test  for
that career field.  He indicates that his supervisor chose to  separate  him
rather than reclassifying him into another field.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement,  and
other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  19 March  2002  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of six years.

On 28 July 2002 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:

        On 17 May 2002, he failed his written Test 1 Version A with a  score
of 64%.  The minimum passing score was 70%.  As a  result,  he  received  an
AETC Form 173  (Student  Record  of  Academic/Non  Academic  Counseling  and
Comments) dated 17 May 2002.

        On 26 June 2002, he failed his written  Test  2  Version  A  with  a
score of 56%.  The minimum passing score was 70%.  As a result, he  received
an AETC Form 173 dated 26 June 2002.

        On 5 July 2002, he failed his written Test 3 Version A with a  score
of 40%.  He also failed Test 3 Version B with a score of 68%.   The  minimum
passing score was 70%.  As a result, he received an AETC Form  173  dated  5
July 2002.

On 28 July 2002, the applicant waived his right to  counsel  and  to  submit
statements in his behalf.

On 30 July 2002, the Assistant Staff Judge  Advocate  recommended  that  the
applicant be separated from the service with an Entry Level Separation.

Applicant was discharged on 9 August 2002, in  the  grade  of  airman  basic
with an Entry Level Performance and Conduct discharge, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-3208.  He served 4 months and 21 days  of  total  active  military
service.  He received an RE code of 2C.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant did  not  submit  any  new  evidence  or
identify  and  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred   in   the   discharge
processing.   He  provided  no  other  facts  warranting  a  change  in  his
discharge.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE  indicated  that  the  Reenlistment  Eligibility  (RE)  code  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 February 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluation  were  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response 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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice that would warrant a change to  his
RE code.  After a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  the
applicant’s submission, it is  our  opinion  that  given  the  circumstances
surrounding his separation from the Air Force,  the  RE  code  assigned  was
proper and in compliance with the  appropriate  directives.   Applicant  has
not provided  any  evidence  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  otherwise.
Therefore, we agree with the Air Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility
and adopt their rational as the basis for our conclusion  that  he  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.   In  the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

4.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice warranting a change in  the  narrative
reason for separation.  After reviewing the applicant’s submission  and  the
evidence of record, we are persuaded that  some  relief  is  warranted.   We
note  that  the  discharge  action  taken  against  the  applicant  was   in
accordance with the applicable instruction.  However,  after  reviewing  the
applicant’s request and the  evidence  of  record,  we  find  the  narrative
reason for his entry-level separation;  i.e.,  entry-level  performance  and
conduct, to be inaccurate.  In our deliberations of this case,  it  appeared
to us that the word “conduct”  could  be  misconstrued  to  infer  that  his
separation for academic deficiency was also due to  misconduct.   While  the
applicant may have  had  problems  progressing  in  the  required  technical
training courses, we have seen no evidence  of  misconduct.   Therefore,  in
order to correct an injustice of  improperly  labeling  the  applicant,  his
narrative reason for separation should be corrected  to  accurately  reflect
the  circumstances  of  his  separation.   In  view  of  the  foregoing,  we
recommend the applicant’s records be corrected by deleting  the  words  “and
conduct” from his narrative reason for separation.


_________________________________________________________________








THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected by deleting the words “and  conduct”  from  Block
28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued on 9 August 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2002-
03087 in Executive Session on 17 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 January 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 January 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 20 February 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 February 2003.




                       ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                       Panel Chair




AFBCMR BC-2002-03087





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    , be corrected by deleting the words “and conduct” from
Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214, Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued on 9 August 2002.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency