RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00928
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had problems with the electrical power production career field.  The  Air
Force has many career fields for which he is qualified.  He  indicates  that
while in the service he had no disciplinary  problems.   He  was  discharged
because he could not grasp the  principles  of  his  career  field  and  his
failure on the Career Development Course (CDC).

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 January 1999 in the  grade
of airman first class for a period of 6 years.

On 15 November 2000, applicant was notified of  his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for Failure to Progress in  On-the-Job
Training (OJT).  The specific reasons follow:

      On or about 1 June 2000 and on or about 12 August 2000, he failed  his
Career Development Course Examination (CDC) which is  required  for  upgrade
training.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal   counsel  and
to submit statements in his own behalf; or  waive  the  above  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  that
before  recommending  the  discharge,  the   applicant   was   given   ample
opportunity to study and prepare for his Career  Development  Course  (CDC).
The applicant’s supervisor outlined a system for  more  productive  studying
which included  computer  aided  test  and  techniques  for  home  studying.
Despite these measures, the applicant failed the second examination with  an
even lower score than his first examination.  This examination  is  required
for upgrade training to the next skill-level.  He further indicated that  he
did not recommend probation and rehabilitation as permitted by AFI  36-3208,
Chapter 7.  The applicant had failed to demonstrate  the  ability  necessary
to pass his CDC Examination.

On 27 November 2000, a legal  review  was  conducted  and  the  staff  judge
advocate  recommended  the  applicant  be   honorably   discharged   without
probation and rehabilitation.

On 1  December  2000,  the  convening  authority  approved  the  applicant’s
discharge.

During the applicant’s length of service he received one performance  report
that reflected an overall evaluation of four.

Applicant was honorably discharged on 8  December  2000,  in  the  grade  of
airman  first  class,  in  accordance  with  AFI   36-3208   (Unsatisfactory
Performance) and given an RE code of 2C.  He  completed  1 year,  10  months
and 25 days of total active duty 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  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence  or  identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process.   Additionally,
he provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge.  He has  filed  a
timely request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE indicates that the applicant’s  RE  code  of  2C,  “Involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level  separation  without
characterization of service” is correct.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 June 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations 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 an 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.   The  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.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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  BC-2003-
00928 in Executive Session on 30 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                  Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 March 2003.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 April 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 June 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 June 2003.

                                ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                Panel Chair