RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02346
            INDEX CODE 110.03, 100.06
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed and he be reinstated
in the Air Force with reclassification into another career field.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His civil  rights  were  violated  and  he  was  not  given  an  equal
opportunity to be a career airman.  The racial discrimination  at  his
base made it hard for African Americans to succeed.  He  was  harassed
by the Security Forces (SF)  on  his  way  to  class  and  accused  of
assaulting another airman.  This harassment  resulted  in  stress  and
lack of concentration, causing him to fail his exams.  Once he  failed
the course, he was told he was no longer under investigation.  He  was
not allowed to be reclassified because he is African  American,  while
non-African American females were allowed to be reclassified.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period  of  four
years on 9 Dec 03.  He entered training at Goodfellow AFB,  TX,  on  4
Feb 04, as an Intelligence Operations Apprentice, Air Force  Specialty
Code (AFSC) 1N011.

An Air Education and Training Command (AETC) letter, dated  6 Apr  04,
outlined new force-shaping reclassification guidelines because an over-
strength of between 16,000-24,000  was  anticipated  for  Fiscal  Year
2004.  Separation was  recommended  for  those  airmen  who  exhibited
disciplinary/motivational problems  or  who  did  not  exhibit  strong
potential for Air Force service warranting reclassification.

On AF Form 3005, Open Training Enlistment Agreement, and AF Form 3007,
Guaranteed  Training  Enlistment  Agreement,  trainees  who  fail   to
complete technical training  acknowledge:   “If  I  fail  to  complete
training because of academic deficiency, misconduct, disqualifications
I have concealed, or other actions for which I am responsible, I  will
have voided this enlistment agreement as it pertains to  my  AFS  [Air
Force Specialty] guarantee and I may be  involuntarily  discharged  or
reclassified into another AFS based on the needs  of  the  Air  Force,
although my background  and  preferences  will  be  considered.”   The
applicant acknowledged this understanding when he signed AF Form  3007
on 9 Dec 03.

The  Student  Training  Report  indicates  the  applicant  had  course
failures and was washed back so that he would  have  opportunities  to
study and understand course material.  The  applicant  apparently  had
“issues outside of school”  and  the  instructor  had  concerns  about
whether the applicant was using slides  from  other  classes  for  his
presentation.   The  applicant’s  weaknesses  included  talking  about
instructors behind their backs,  exaggeration,  an  indolent  attitude
towards school tasks and studies,  minimal  task  completion,  and  no
observable leadership traits.  The applicant met uniform standards and
exhibited understanding of proper military customs and courtesies.

The Record of Administrative Training Action, AETC Form 125A, dated  1
Jun 04, indicated the applicant was eliminated from the 1N0 course for
academic reasons, i.e., three course failures through seven blocks  of
instruction.   The  Record  reported  the  applicant  demonstrated  an
inability to comprehend the basics of the intelligence  career  field,
struggled academically, and raised questions concerning his  integrity
and ability to maintain the high level of personal professionalism and
conduct required in the Air Force.  The Record noted the applicant had
numerous negative memoranda for the record written by both instructors
and fellow classmates.  The applicant expressed  a  strong  desire  to
remain in the Air Force and transfer to the  Fire  Protection  Course.
However, the flight commander  recommended  discharge.   The  squadron
commander concurred.

On 15 Jun 04, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent  to
recommend  discharge,  without  reclassification,  for  unsatisfactory
performance.  The applicant’s three course failures and  inability  to
comprehend the basics of the intelligence  career  field  were  cited.
After  consulting  counsel,  the  applicant  submitted   a   statement
indicating he began to lose  focus  due  to  problems  he  was  having
outside of school.  He described how he was taken from his  dorm  bed,
handcuffed and told he was being investigated for  an  assault  on  an
airman.  The month-long investigation cleared him but he felt  he  had
already been convicted of a crime he did not  commit.   He  could  not
focus on his studies because of the repeated questioning  by  SF.   He
asked to be retained and placed in another career field.

A 22 Jun 04 legal review  noted  the  following:   The  applicant  was
questioned by the SF on 4 Apr 04 at 1017 hours on a  Sunday  about  an
assault incident.  On 5 Apr 04, he saw his Area Defense Counsel  (ADC)
and missed only a small portion of a  lecture,  which  the  instructor
reaccomplished on 6 Apr  04.   This  questioning  was  most  likely  a
contributing factor to the applicant’s second course failure on 7  Apr
04, but was not a factor in his first course failure on 24 Mar  04  or
in his third course failure on 4 May 04.  After failing, the applicant
was counseled and asked if any outside factors were affecting  him  or
adding to his failure, to which  he  replied  in  the  negative.   The
applicant was recommended for reclassification due to his inability to
complete his first career field but reclassification  was  disapproved
per the AETC Force Reshaping Reclassification Guidance Letter, dated 6
Apr 04.  Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were  inappropriate.   The
discharge was found legally sufficient and an honorable discharge  was
recommended.

The discharge authority approved the honorable discharge  without  P&R
on 25 Jun 04.

On 1 Jul 04, the applicant was honorably discharged in  the  grade  of
airman for unsatisfactory performance after 5 months and  23  days  of
active service.  He was issued  an  RE  code  of  “2C”  (Involuntarily
Separated with  an  Honorable  Discharge)  and  a  Separation  Program
Designator (SPD) code of “JHJ” (Unsatisfactory Performance).   His  DD
Form 214 indicates he had prior active service  of  6  months  and  23
days; however, this may be an error because  his  records  contain  no
documents verifying this.  In fact,  his  9  Dec  03  enlisted  papers
identify him as a “non-prior service” member.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS concludes that, based on the documentation on file,  the
discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge
authority.  The applicant has  not  submitted  evidence  of  error  or
injustice or facts warranting reclassification or a change to  his  RE
code.  Denial is therefore recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 3 Sep 04 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 timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant  partial  relief.   The
applicant has not established to our  satisfaction  that  he  was  the
victim of racial bias as he alleges.  Further, the  available  records
appear to  indicate  his  attitude  and  performance  were  less  than
stellar.  Other than the applicant’s own assertions, he has  presented
no  credible  evidence  his  discharge  without  reclassification  was
unfounded, especially given the guidance outlined in the 6 Apr 04 AETC
letter.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis on which to  reinstate
the applicant or  provide  him  with  RE  and  SPD  codes  that  would
facilitate  immediate  reenlistment.   However,  we  acknowledge   the
assault investigation may have had an impact on his ability  to  focus
on his training and testing.  We believe a fair solution would  be  to
award the applicant a waiverable RE code; in other words, an  RE  code
from the “3” series which would give him an opportunity to  apply  for
enlistment in the  Reserves.   If  he  has  desirable  skills  and  is
otherwise  acceptable,  the  Reserves   may   elect   to   waive   his
ineligibility and allow him  to  reenlist.   We  must  emphasize  that
whether or not he is successful  will  depend  on  the  needs  of  the
service, and the Board’s recommendation in no way guarantees  he  will
be allowed to enlist in the  Reserves.   We  therefore  recommend  his
reenlistment code be changed to “3K” and, for the sake of consistency,
his SPD code be changed to “JFF.”

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, in conjunction  with
his honorable discharge on 1 July 2004, he was issued  a  Reenlistment
Eligibility code of “3K”, rather than “2C”, and a  Separation  Program
Designator code of “JFF”, rather than “JHJ”.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 18 November 2004 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2004-02346 was considered:

   Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated (received 23 Jul 04), w/atchs.
   Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Aug 04.
   Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Sep 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair





AFBCMR BC-2004-02346




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     , be corrected to show that, in conjunction with
his honorable discharge on 1 July 2004, he was issued a Reenlistment
Eligibility code of “3K”, rather than “2C”, and a Separation Program
Designator code of “JFF”, rather than “JHJ”.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency