RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02362
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was separated because he did [sic] pass his test for  the  security
forces course.  He asked to be reclassified or transferred to  another
branch and was denied (Exhibit A).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  22  May  2001  for  a
period of four years, in the grade of airman basic (AB/E-1).

On  28  Aug  01,  the  squadron  commander  initiated   administrative
discharge action against the applicant for entry-level performance  or
conduct.  The reason for the proposed action was  that  he  failed  to
make satisfactory  progress  in  a  required  training  program.   The
applicant was eliminated from the Security Forces  technical  training
course for academic deficiency after failing the  first  written  test
twice with scores of 44% and 48%--minimum passing was 70%.   Prior  to
disenrollment applicant was counseled concerning his academic  failure
and received four hours of  Special  Individualized  Assistance.   The
commander recommended that  the  applicant  be  given  an  entry-level
separation.  On that same date, applicant acknowledged receipt of  the
discharge notification.   After  consulting  with  counsel,  applicant
waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.  On 4 Sep 01,
the staff judge advocate found the case to be legally  sufficient  and
recommended an entry-level separation.  On 6  Sep  01,  the  discharge
authority approved the entry-level separation.

The applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level separation on 18
September 2001, by reason of “Entry Level  Performance  and  Conduct,”
and was issued an RE code of 2C.  He was credited with 2 months and 15
days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed the application and recommended  denial.   They
found that the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation.   Additionally,
that the discharge was within the sound discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.   They  also  noted  that  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 (DOD) determined if a member  served  less  than
180 days continuous service, it would be unfair to the member and  the
service  to  characterize  their  limited  service.   Therefore,   his
uncharacterized service is correct and in accordance with DOD and  Air
Force  instructions.   They  further  stated   that   an   entry-level
separation should not be viewed as negative or less than honorable and
should not be confused with other types of separation.

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:

Through his congressman, the applicant provided a statement as to  the
circumstances surrounding  his  recruitment  in  the  Air  Force,  his
military service and subsequent discharge.  He  further  explains  the
conditions surrounding his ability to find  a  job  and  getting  into
college since leaving the service.

Applicant’s complete response 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 error or  injustice  concerning  the  applicant’s  RE
code.  The  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence  showing  that  his
assigned  RE  code  is  in  error  or  contrary  to   the   prevailing
instruction.  The RE code which was issued at the time of  applicant’s
separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation and
we do not find this code to be in error  or  unjust.   We,  therefore,
conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action
on his request that it be changed.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice warranting a change in the 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 overly harsh.  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 18 Sep
01.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02362 in Executive Session on 4 March 2003, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 15 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Congressman, dated 19 Dec 02,
                w/atchs, (Applicant’s letter, dated 16 Dec 02).




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair






 AFBCMR 02-02362








 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 xxxxxxxxxxx, 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 18 Sep 01.










           JOE G. LINEBERGER
           Director
           Air Force Review Boards Agency