RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00972
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The “2C” reenlistment eligibility (RE) code he received be changed  to
a code that would allow him to reenlist into the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He realizes that he should not have taken such a good opportunity  for
granted.  He has learned from his mistakes.  He regrets  the  mistakes
he made and wants to be a member of the  Air  Force  and  believes  he
would be a valuable asset.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)  on  30 December
2002, as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 6 May 2003, the applicant’s commander notified  the  applicant  of
his intent to recommend him for discharge for Entry Level Performance
or Conduct.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.  On 24 March 2003, the  applicant  failed  to  refrain  from
talking during physical conditioning (PC), and continued to talk even
after being instructed to stop.  For this misconduct,  the  applicant
received an AETC Form 341 (Excellence/Discrepancy Report),  dated  24
March 2003.

      b.  On 5  April  2003,  the  applicant  failed  to  report  for
Remedial Training (RMT) and,  as  a  result,  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) dated 19 April 2003 and was rescheduled for RMT on 19
April 2003.

      c.  On 9 April 2003, the applicant fell  asleep  during  class.
For this misconduct, he received an AETC  Form  341,  dated  9  April
2003.

      d.  The applicant, on 19 April 2003, again failed to report  to
RMT.  For this misconduct, the applicant received  an  LOR  dated  19
April  2003.   Subsequently,  the  Military  Training  Liaison  (MTL)
discovered the applicant had six consecutive room inspection failures
and for this misconduct, he received a LOR dated 19 April 2003.

      e.  The applicant, on 22 April 2003, failed to sign in  at  the
squadron and return to class following his appointment at the clinic.
 When the applicant was questioned about  his  whereabouts  following
his clinic appointment, he lied about where he was and  the  time  he
signed in.  The applicant also made a false entry on the sign in log.
 For this misconduct, he received a LOR dated 23 April 2004.

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

On 6 May 2003, after consulting with  counsel,  applicant  waived  his
right to submit a statement.

On 6 May 2003, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge
advocate recommended the applicant be separated with an  entry-level
separation.

The  discharge  authority  approved  the   applicant’s   entry-level
discharge.

On 13 May 2003, the applicant was separated in  the  grade  of  airman
basic under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 for entry-level  performance
and conduct with an uncharacterized entry level separation.  He served
4 months and 14 days of active military service.  He was issued an  RE
code of 2C which  denotes  he  was  involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable    discharge,    or    entry-level    separation     without
characterization of service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the applicant's
records, they believe his discharge was consistent with the procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   Also,  the
discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.

Air  Force  policy  is  that  entry-level  separations/uncharacterized
service characterizations are given to service members  who  have  not
completed more than  180  days  of  continuous  active  service.   The
Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a service member served less
than 180 days of active service, that it would be unfair to the member
to characterize that service.  The applicant's uncharacterized service
is correct and in accordance with DOD and AFIs.   The  uncharacterized
separation should not be viewed as negative and not be  confused  with
other types of separations.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
16 April 2004, for review and response.  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  concerning  the  applicant’s
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.  The applicant’s  contentions  are
duly noted; however, it appears that the RE code which was  issued  at
the time of his separation accurately reflects  the  circumstances  of
his separation.  The applicant has not  provided  persuasive  evidence
showing that the assigned code is in error or unjust  or  contrary  to
the prevailing instruction.  Therefore, we conclude there is no  basis
upon which to recommend favorable action on his request to the  change
RE code.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-00972 in Executive Session on 18 May 2004, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
                       Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 19 Mar 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Apr 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Apr 04.




                             BRENDA L. ROMINE
                             Panel Chair