RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00727
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  of  2C   (Involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level  separation
without characterization of service) be changed.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was given an RE code of 2C because he failed  his  yearly  exam,
not because of legal, moral or ethical reasons.  He would  like  to
reenlist in another branch of service (Army) but  the  2C  code  is
keeping him from being able to enter.

He believes RE code 2C was not the correct code.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty,  dated
2 May 01.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  20  Jan  99  for  a
period of six years.  He was promoted to the grade of airman  first
class with an effective date and date of rank (DOR)  of  26 May 99.
He received two performance reports with  promotion  recommendation
ratings of four (on a scale of one to five).

On 30 Mar  01,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge  action  against   the   applicant   for   Unsatisfactory
Performance--Failure to Progress in On-the-Job Training (OJT).

The reasons for the proposed action were  that  on  2  Nov  00  and
6 Feb 01, applicant failed  to  make  satisfactory  progress  in  a
required OJT  program.   The  applicant  was  eliminated  from  the
Security Forces Apprentice training course for academic  deficiency
after failing the end-of-course examination twice, with  scores  of
63% and 55%--minimum passing  was  65%.   Prior  to  disenrollment,
applicant was counseled concerning  his  performance  and  received
individualized assistance with negative results.

Other  derogatory  information  cited  by  the  commander  included
applicant’s receipt of four letters of reprimand between 1  Dec  99
and 1 May 00,  for  failure  to  go  to  mandatory  Family  Support
appointments on 31 Nov 99 and 3 Jan 00,  failure  to  complete  his
first volume for his Career Development Course (CDC), number 3P051,
prior to the pre-established deadline, and for failure to go  to  a
mandatory cycle ergometry appointment on 27 Apr 00.

The commander recommended that the applicant be given an  honorable
discharge.  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 6 Apr 01, the staff judge advocate found the case to be  legally
sufficient and recommended an honorable discharge without probation
and rehabilitation.  On 19 Apr 01, the discharge authority approved
the honorable discharge.

On 2 May 2001, applicant was  honorably  discharged  by  reason  of
“Unsatisfactory Performance,” and was issued an RE code of 2C.   He
was credited with 2 years, 3 months, and 13  days  of  active  duty
service.
___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended  denial  of  applicant’s  request.   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  the  applicant  did
not submit any new evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ 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:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant
on 30 May 03 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.   At  the  time  a
member is separated from the Air Force, they are  furnished  an  RE
Code  predicated  upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and   the
circumstances of their separation.  The assigned code reflects  the
Air Force’s position  regarding  whether  or  not,  or  under  what
circumstances, the individual should be allowed to  reenlist.   The
evidence of record supports  the  stated  reasons  for  applicant’s
involuntary separation; i.e.,  his  failure  to  make  satisfactory
progress in on-the-job  training.   His  assigned  RE  Code  of  2C
reflects his involuntary separation with  an  honorable  discharge.
After careful consideration of the evidence provided, a majority of
the Board was not persuaded that the assigned RE code is  in  error
or unjust  or  that  an  upgrade  of  the  RE  code  is  warranted.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  a  majority
of the Board finds no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.
___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2003-00727  in  Executive  Session  on  20  Aug  03,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Ms. Leslie Abbott, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

By a majority vote, the members voted to deny applicant's  request.
Ms. Crerar voted to grant  the  applicant's  request  but  did  not
desire to submit a  minority  report.   The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Feb 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 31 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair

                   MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                   FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Case on APPLICANT, AFBCMR: BC-2003-00727

      I have carefully reviewed the circumstances of this case and do not
agree with the recommendation of the majority of the panel that applicant’s
request to have his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C changed should
be denied.

      After considering the evidence available for my review, I agree with
the minority member of the panel that the applicant’s request should be
granted.  In this regard, I noted the favorable comments in the applicant’s
on-the-job (OJT) training records.  In his initial assessment, the
supervisor stated the applicant had good study habits and one of the ways
to improve his scores was for him to have more hands-on experience with the
equipment.  In the second assessment, the commander stated that applicant’s
supervisor recommended retaining the applicant and that he be given hands-
on training.  Despite his difficulties with the testing portion of his
training, the applicant appears to have remained motivated to try and
complete the training program.  In view of this, I believe he should be
afforded a second chance to serve.  Therefore, it is my decision that his
RE code should be changed to “3K,” which is a code that can be waived for
prior service enlistment consideration, provided he meets all other
requirements for enlistment under an existing prior service program.





                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards
Agency







AFBCMR BC-2003-00727




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 2 May
2001, he was discharged with Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code
“3K.”






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency