RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02418
            INDEX CODE:  100.03

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  of  2C   (involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level  separation
without characterization of service) be changed  to  a  code  which
will allow him to reenlist in the Air Force.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not feel the RE code of 2C  was  deserved  because  it  has
closed the door to his opportunities  in  the  Air  Force  and  the
military.  He would really like to continue his career in  the  Air
Force.

He had his own faults and wrongdoing, but put some of the blame  on
his superior officers.  He also felt he was  discriminated  against
and was accused of being  a  racist  on  several  occasions,  which
resulted in unfair punishments.

He  is  now  wiser,  more  mature,  and   able   to   handle   many
responsibilities, and believes that he would be a  wonderful  asset
to the Air Force, if given a second chance.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 November 2001
for a period of 4 years in the grade of airman basic.

On or about 21 Feb 02,  applicant  failed  a  room  inspection.  He
received an AF For 341.

On or between 28 Feb 02 and  5  Mar  02,  applicant  showed  little
interest in class or military  bearing.  For  this  he  received  a
memorandum for record (MFR).

On or about 5 Mar 02, he received an  MFR  for  failing  two  block
tests for course X3ABR3E731-006 (Fire Protection Apprentice).

On or about 6 Mar 02, he received a letter of reprimand  (LOR)  for
his lack of military bearing, test failures, and not shaving.

On or about 7 Apr 02, applicant consumed  alcohol  while  underage.
He received an LOR for this offense.

On or about 16 Apr 02,  applicant  did  not  shave,  for  which  he
received an AF Form 341.

On or about  2  May  02,  applicant  was  disenrolled  from  course
X3ABR3E731-006 for  misconduct.   He  was  not  recommendation  for
reclassification.

On 9  May  02,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant  for  entry  level  conduct,
based on the incidents cited above.

The applicant was eliminated from the  Fire  Protection  Apprentice
training course for academic deficiency after failing written  test
of course examination three times with scores of 68%, 68% and 68%--
minimum passing score was 70%.  Prior to  disenrollment,  applicant
was   counseled   concerning   his   performance    and    received
individualized assistance with negative results.

The commander recommended that the applicant  be  given  an  entry-
level separation.  On 13 May 02, he waived  his  right  to  consult
counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf..  On 13 May 02,
the staff judge advocate found the case to  be  legally  sufficient
and recommended an entry-level separation.  The discharge authority
directed applicant be discharged with an entry-level separation.

On 21 May 02, applicant  received  an  uncharacterized  entry-level
separation, by reason of “Entry Level Performance and Conduct,” and
was issued an RE code of 2C.  He was credited  with  6  months  and
1 day of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial of the applicant’s request.   They
found that the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural  and
substantive   requirements    of    the    discharge    regulation.
Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority.  The applicant  did  not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in  the
discharge processing and he provided no other facts  warranting  an
upgrade of the discharge.

They   also   noted   that    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.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A 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,  no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.   Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded that  the
applicant has been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   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.   Applicant’s  RE  code  of  2C
accurately reflects that he was  involuntarily  separated  with  an
entry level separation without characterization of service.   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  governing  directives.   In
the absence of persuasive evidence to  the  contrary,  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-2004-02418 in Executive Session on 2 November  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 27 Aug 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Sep 04.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair