RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03141
                                        INDEX CODE 100.06
                                        COUNSEL:  None

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C to 3K or 1A.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His RE code is too harsh for the circumstances  surrounding  his  discharge.
He was not afforded the opportunity to  retrain  or  train  in  another  Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC). With an upgraded RE code, he can join  the  Air
Force Reserves.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits supporting  statements  from
the North Charleston, SC, mayor, police department,  a  preliminary  hearing
court judge, and a magistrate attesting to  the  applicant’s  character  and
performance  as  a   police   detective.   The   applicant’s   Congressional
Representative also provided support.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 Jan 89  for  a  period
of four years and assigned to Charleston AFB, SC.

The  applicant’s  training  progress  records  as   a   loadmaster   include
suggestions for additional study,  more  self-initiative,  and  better  time
management, crew coordination, and attitude/relationship skills.  Additional
instruction/review  of  difficult  areas  was  recommended.  The   applicant
apparently at some point indicated he didn’t care if he  ever  upgraded  and
was only in for four  years.   He  was  briefed  on  self-study  habits  and
advised to  ask  questions,  be  more  assertive,  and  accept  constructive
criticism.

On 20 Nov 89, he received a Letter of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for  unsatisfactory
professionalism, initiative/attitude, judgment, and  tact/diplomacy  in  his
loadmaster training. The LOR indicated this was not the first instructor  to
grade him unsatisfactory in one or  more  of  these  areas  and  that  other
instructors had made negative comments concerning his  performance.  He  was
found derelict in his duties in failing to perform his  upgrade  duties  and
responsibilities in an efficient manner even though he had the  ability  and
the opportunity to do so.

After  a  brief  improvement,  the  applicant’s  training  progress  records
reflect he was counseled on his downgraded  areas  and  professional  image.
The applicant again  showed  improvement  in  timeliness  and  attitude  and
appeared to be “on the right track after several stumbles.” He  demonstrated
good abilities during a demanding mission and  accomplished  his  loadmaster
duties well. He was recommended for evaluation. He then  was  downgraded  in
certain areas and found to have a difficult time  making  decisions  because
his instructors often made them for him.

A Certificate of Aircrew Qualification dated 18 Jan 90 noted  the  applicant
went to sleep while  performing  primary  duties  in-flight  and  failed  to
perform proper tests. A minimum of three training flights was recommended.

Progress records reflect the applicant demonstrated  he  had  the  knowledge
and ability required to  perform  his  duties.  However,  reports  noted  he
continued to fail aspects of his duties  and  did  not  seem  to  possess  a
genuine willingness  to  upgrade  or  maintain  proficiency.  The  applicant
apparently indicated that half the time he would “rather be  working  toward
some other job, like being a cop or a weapons range instructor.”  Counseling
was suggested.

On 23 Feb 90, an  Aircrew  Review  and  Certification  Board  convened.  The
applicant’s additional training  was  reviewed.  Based  on  his  performance
during his last two missions  and  his  demonstrated  attitude  on  numerous
training flights, the board  found  he  did  not  successfully  upgrade  and
recommended he be removed from aviation service.

On 9  May  90,  he  was  permanently  disqualified  from  aviation  service.
Apparently, he was not recommended for retraining but  was  recommended  for
separation.

An evaluation was  required  for  his  AFR  39-10  discharge.  AF  Form  77,
Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, for the period  24  May  through  18  Jun  90
described the applicant’s assistance in a vehicular accident  while  he  was
on leave. The rater noted that, although the applicant had  the  ability  to
achieve, he lacked the drive and initiative  to  become  a  fully  qualified
loadmaster.  Further,  his  attitude  toward  his  training  was  less  than
adequate  and  instructors  commented  his  progression  had  declined.  The
applicant had the intelligence to accomplish any task but  sometimes  lacked
the maturity to decide the best course of action.

On 20 Jun 90, the applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s  intent  to
recommend  an  honorable  discharge  for  unsatisfactory  performance.   The
applicant was subsequently  recommended  for  an  honorable  discharge.  The
commander indicated the applicant was afforded every opportunity  to  become
a fully qualified loadmaster, had  flown  with  every  assigned  instructor,
been counseled several times, and given priority on all  training  missions.
Probation and rehabilitation  (P&R)  was  not  recommended  because  of  the
applicant’s attitude towards the Air Force and  his  lackadaisical  approach
to  even  minimum  standards.  The  applicant   submitted   statements   for
consideration,  indicating  his  enthusiasm  was  dampened  by  instructors’
demeaning comments and complete lack of inconsistent training. He  indicated
he had no difficulties with basic, technical, and combat  survival  training
at other bases. He expressed a strong desire to remain in the Air Force  and
asked to be retrained to an AFSC needed at Charleston AFB.

Legal review  on  9  Jul  90  found  the  case  sufficient  and  recommended
honorable discharge without  P&R  essentially  because  of  the  applicant’s
attitude problem. The discharge authority concurred with the  recommendation
on 12 Jul 90 and directed the applicant’s discharge.

On 17 Jul 90, the applicant  was  honorably  discharged  for  unsatisfactory
performance in the grade of airman first class after 1 year,  5  months  and
29 days of active service. He was issued an RE  code  of  2C  (Involuntarily
discharged under AFR 39-10 with an  honorable  characterization  or  a  non-
characterized entry level separation).

The applicant is asking for an RE code of  1A  or  3K.  In  1990,  1A  meant
“Ineligible to reenlist but condition waived.”  However,  according  to  the
regulation notes, airmen cannot be separated with this code.   In  1990,  3K
meant “Second term or career airman serving in the grade of SRA who has  not
been appointed to NCO Status.” The applicant may believe it means  “Reserved
for use by HQ AFMPC or the AFBCMR;” however, this meaning  for  3K  did  not
come into existence until 18 Jul 91, after he was discharged.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRSP believes the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within  the
discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant has  not  substantiated  any
errors or injustices and his appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 31 Oct 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this  date,  this
office has received no response.
______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest
of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice.  The applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we are not persuaded that his RE  code  should  be  changed.
At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished  an
RE code predicated upon the quality of their service  and  circumstances  of
their separation.  After a thorough review of the  evidence  of  record,  we
believe  that,  given  the   circumstances   surrounding   the   applicant’s
separation, the RE code  issued  was  in  accordance  with  the  appropriate
directives. We commend the applicant’s  post-service  performance,  but  the
evidence of record reflects that he did not apply himself to his  Air  Force
duties despite having the ability to  master  his  training.  Therefore,  we
find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.

4.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 18 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                                   Ms.  Carolyn  J.  Watkins-Taylor,   Panel
Chair
                                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                                  Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member

The following documentary evidence  regarding  AFBCMR  Docket  No.  BC-2003-
03141 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 16 Oct 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.




                                        CAROLYN J. WATKINS-TAYLOR
                                        Panel Chair