RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02601
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation document (DD 214) states entry-level performance and  conduct
as  reason  for  separation;  however,  speeding  and  other  motor  vehicle
infractions were obtained prior to  enlistment.   These  infractions  should
have been discovered prior to allowing his enlistment.

In support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits  a  copy  of  his
discharge notification letter, a copy of his separation request, a  copy  of
the Notification of Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program  Permanent
Decertification/Disqualification Action form,  a  copy  of  his  receipt  of
notification memorandum, a copy of his discharge memorandum, a copy  of  his
separation document (member 1 & 4), and a copy of the  Application  for  the
Review of Discharge or  Dismissal  from  the  Armed  Forces  of  the  United
States.  The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 December 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at  the
age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of  6  years.   He
completed Basic Military Training school in January 2003, and  was  assigned
as a Missile & Space Systems Maintenance Helper.

At the request of the training squadron commander, an initial screening  for
a Controlled Personnel Reliability Program  (PRP)  position  was  performed.
As  a  result,  significant  disciplinary   infractions   were   discovered,
including several preservice violations  to  include  a  vehicular  speeding
violation, seatbelt violation, careless/reckless driving violation,  failure
to keep right, and failure to yield tickets.   In  addition,  the  applicant
received a speeding ticket while assigned to his unit.

On 3 May 2004, his commander determined that the applicant  had  significant
Potentially   Disqualifying   Information   (PDI),   and   disapproved    an
administrative certification recommendation.

On 7  June  2004,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force  under  the  provisions  of
AFPD 36-32 and AFI  36-3208,  Chapter  5  for  Entry  Level  Performance  or
Conduct: failure to  make  satisfactory  progress  in  a  required  training
program.  Additionally, the  commander  indicated  the  applicant  had  been
reclassified once  before  in  his  Air  Force  career,  and  had  requested
separation in  lieu  of  being  reclassified.   The  applicant  acknowledged
receipt of the notification and waived his rights  to  consult  counsel  and
submit statements in his own behalf.  On 18 June 2004,  the  discharge  case
file was reviewed and coordinated on in  the  Wing  Staff  Judge  Advocate’s
office.   The  recommended  separation  was  subsequently  approved  by  the
discharge authority, who directed that the applicant be  separated  with  an
uncharacterized entry-level separation.

On 7 July 2004, the applicant was separated with an  entry-level  separation
because of Entry-Level Performance and Conduct.  He had served 6 months  and
22 days on  active  duty.   An  uncharacterized  character  of  service  was
assigned.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states based  on  the  documentation
on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was  consistent  with
the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation,
and the discharge was within the  discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.
DPPRS  asserts  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 of continuous  service,  it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited  service.
 Therefore, the applicant’s uncharacterized character of service is  correct
and in accordance with DoD and Air  Force  instructions.   DPPRS  notes  the
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the  discharge  process,  nor  did  he  provide  any  facts
warranting a change to his character of service.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 8 October 2004.  As of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (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.  The Board majority is not persuaded  by
the evidence presented  that  the  entry-level  separation  characterization
received by the former member should be changed to an  honorable  discharge.
It appears that under the given  circumstances  at  that  time,  responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting his  discharge  action.
The applicant’s contentions and supporting documentation  were  duly  noted.
However, his uncharacterized entry  level  separation  was,  by  regulation,
required based on  the  fact  that  separation  proceedings  were  initiated
within 180 days of his entry on active duty.   In  view  of  the  number  of
disciplinary incidents that occurred and the fact  that  the  applicant  was
reclassified into another career field on one previous occasion during  this
time period, the Board majority does not find an exception  to  this  policy
is warranted in this case.  Therefore, based on the  available  evidence  of
record, the Board majority finds no basis upon which to  favorably  consider
this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 1 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Panel Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Panel Member

By a majority vote, the members voted to deny the request.   Mr. Charles  E.
Bennett voted to correct the record and did not desire to submit a  minority
report.  The following documentary evidence was  considered  in  AFBCMR  BC-
2004-02601:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Sep 04 w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Oct 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.




            CHARLES E. BENNETT
            Panel Chair








MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                       FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of , AFBCMR BC-2004-02601


      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended
the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency