RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03145
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation program designator (SPD) code of JFX be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His SPD code (JFX) was assigned in error.  He indicates he  has  never  been
diagnosed with a personality disorder.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 March 2004, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  for  a
period of four years.

On 5 August 2004, the applicant was notified of his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge  action  against  him  for  Entry  Level  Performance  or
Conduct.  The specific reasons follow:

        On 2 June 2004, the applicant disobeyed  a  lawful  order  from  his
superior by failing to go with an airman to the back  of  the  warehouse  to
work.  When the applicant’s superior asked him what he said, he replied,  “I
refuse to work.”  As a result, he received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR),
dated 2 June 2004.

        On 3 June 2004, the applicant disobeyed a  direct  order  twice,  by
failing to go to the dining  facility  as  directed  by  his  superior.   He
stated he was going to Burger  King.   For  the  third  time,  his  superior
directed him to go straight to the dining facility to eat and  then  return.
Upon further investigation, it  was  found  he  disregarded  his  superior’s
order and went to Burger King anyway.  As a  result,  he  received  an  LOR,
dated 3 June 2004.

        On 3 June 2004, the applicant was told to proceed  to  his  assigned
detailed location, and he refused.  He was explained the  ramifications  for
refusing to work by his superiors, and he stated he  did  not  believe  them
and had not changed his mind.  He was asked again  if  he  was  refusing  to
work, and he replied, “Yes, I am refusing to work or train.”  As  a  result,
he received an LOR, dated 3 June 2004.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action  that  he
recommends an entry-level separation without probation and rehabilitation.

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

The applicant waived his right to consult counsel and to  submit  statements
in his own behalf.

The discharge authority approved the entry-level separation.

On  13  August  2004,  the  applicant  was  separated  with  an  entry-level
separation in the grade of airman,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208
(Entry-Level Performance and Conduct).  He served 4 months and  14  days  of
total active duty service.  The applicant received  a  SPD  code  of  JGA  -
entry-level performance and conduct.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial  indicating  based  on  the  documentation  on
file, the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.   The  discharge  was  within  the
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.  He provided no  facts  warranting  a  change  to  his
separation code.

Airmen   are   given    entry-level    separation/uncharacterized    service
characterization  when  separation  is  initiated  in  the  first  180  days
continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if  a
member served less than 180 days continuous  active  service,  it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited  service.
 Therefore, his uncharacterized character  of  service  is  correct  and  in
accordance with DOD and Air Force instructions.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated he  apologizes  for  his
actions while in the service.  Four weeks into basic training  he  began  to
miss his family, especially his mother, since his father  passed  away.   He
worried about his mother and  wanted  to  be  home  with  her.   He  further
indicates he has learned from his mistakes  and  will  make  better  choices
instead of acting out on aggressions.

Applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of  record
and the applicant’s submission, the  applicant’s  discharge  and  separation
codes appear to be in compliance with the  governing  AFI  and  we  find  no
evidence to indicate his separation from the Air  Force  was  inappropriate.
The applicant contends he was never diagnosed with  a  personality  disorder
and was erroneously given an SPD code of JFX -  personality  disorder.   The
Board notes the applicant was not separated with an SPD  code  of  JFX,  but
was separated with an SPD code of JGA, entry-level performance and  conduct.
 The Board finds no evidence of error in  this  case  and  after  thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he has suffered from  an
injustice.  Applicant’s narrative reason and  resulting  separation  program
designator  code  accurately  reflect  his  entry-level  separation  without
characterization of service.  In view  of  the  above,  we  agree  with  the
opinion  and  recommendation  of   the   Air   Force   office   of   primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.


_________________________________________________________________






THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
03145 in Executive Session on 25 January 2005, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
                 Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 October 2004, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, 18 November 2004.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 November 2004.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                       PEGGY E. GORDON
                       Panel Chair