RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02210

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  No

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "2C" be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He still wants to serve his country.  He was told that he  was  not  allowed
to be reclassified in Technical School.  He had an opportunity  for  another
job because the Air Force was over manned.  He wants a fair shot  at  making
a life and a career in the Air Force.  He has  spoken  with  his  local  Air
National Guard Unit and was told that they can use him.  He just  needs  his
RE code.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an  airman  basic  on  18
November 2003 for a period of 4 years.  He was separated from the Air  Force
on  20  May  2004  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative
Separation  of  Airmen  (entry  level  performance  and  conduct)  with   an
uncharacterized entry-level separation and an RE code of  2C  which  denotes
"Involuntarily  separated  with  an  honorable  discharge;  or  entry  level
separation without characterization of service."  He served 6 months  and  3
days on active duty.

On 3 May 2004, his commander notified him that he was recommending an entry-
level discharge because he failed to make satisfactory progress in  required
training program.  He failed Block 3 and 6 examinations with scores  of  65%
and 60%, respectively.  Minimum passing score is 70% and efforts to  improve
his performance met with negative results.

On  17  February  2004,  he  received  counseling  for  dereliction  in  the
performance of his duties in that he failed to complete  assigned  outlines.


On 18 March 2004, he received a Letter of Counseling for failure  to  go  at
the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

On 19 March 2004, he received counseling for dereliction in the  performance
of his duties in that  he  willfully  failed  to  show  proper  customs  and
courtesies to a noncommissioned officer by talking during counseling.

On 22 March 2004, he received counseling for  failing  to  comply  with  the
standards of conduct during mandatory study.

On 5 April 2004, he received counseling for dereliction in  the  performance
of  his  duties  in  that  he  willfully  failed  to  follow  proper  safety
precautions in the lab.

On 7 April 2004, he received a Letter of Reprimand for  dereliction  in  the
performance of his duties in  that  he  willfully  failed  to  refrain  from
wearing jewelry in the lab.

On 3 May 2004, the applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  for
discharge and after consulting with legal counsel submitted a  statement  on
his own behalf.

On 17 May 2004, the base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it
legally sufficient to support  an  uncharacterized  entry-level  separation.
The discharge  authority  approved  the  discharge  and  directed  that  the
applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized entry-level separation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial and states that based on the  documentation  in
the file, the discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  The discharge  was  within  sound
discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.   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  Department  of  Defense  and  Air
Force instructions.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 30 July 2004, 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 an error or injustice that  would  warrant  corrective  action.
Evidence has not been provided in support of his appeal,  which  would  lead
us to believe that a change to his RE code is warranted.  We took notice  of
his complete submission in judging the merits of this case; however,  we  do
not find his assertions sufficiently persuasive to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force.  Absent persuasive evidence  that  the  applicant
was denied  rights  to  which  he  was  entitled  or  that  the  appropriate
standards were not applied during  his  discharge  processing,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application

_________________________________________________________________

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-
00752 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Jul 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04.




                                   MARTHA J. EVANS
                                   PanelChair