RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03544
            INDEX CODE:  100.03, 100.06

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation  and  reenlistment  eligibility
(RE) code be changed to allow him to rejoin the Armed Forces.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The grounds for his separation were not  a  result  of  entry-level
performance and conduct as stated on his DD Form  214,  Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.   His  commander  advised
him that he would be able to separate from the Air Force without  a
negative discharge in order to finish college and that he would  be
eligible to enter a commissioning program.   At  the  time  of  his
separation, no one advised him  that  he  would  be  ineligible  to
reenlist, nor did they explain the meaning of his RE code.

In support of his  request,  the  applicant  submitted  a  personal
statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, four (4) Character  Reference
letters, a copy of his Norfolk State University College Transcript,
a copy of a Golden Key International Honour Society Certificate and
a letter from the Golden Key International Honour Society.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  on  12  November
2002, in the grade of airman basic.

On  19  March  2003,  his  commander  notified  him  that  he   was
recommending  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  under  the
provisions of AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(entry-level performance and conduct).  The specific reason for his
action was on 3 March 2003, the applicant was eliminated  from  the
Integrated Avionics  Systems  Apprentice  course  due  to  academic
deficiencies.  He failed his Block 3  test  on  12  February  2003,
scoring a 63; passing score is 70.  On 26 February 2003, he  failed
his Block 4 test with a score of 55  percent.   The  applicant  was
advised of his  rights  in  the  matter.   On  19  March  2003,  he
acknowledged receipt of  the  notification,  waived  his  right  to
consult counsel, and elected not to submit statements  on  his  own
behalf.  The case was reviewed on 21 March 2003, and  found  to  be
legally sufficient to support discharge.  He was separated from the
Air Force on 27 March 2003,  with  an  uncharacterized  entry-level
separation, and received an RE code of 2C ”Involuntarily  separated
with an honorable discharge;  or  entry  level  separation  without
characterization of service.”  He served 4 months and  16  days  on
active duty.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states  that  based  upon  the
documentation in the file, the discharge was  consistent  with  the
procedural  and   substantive   requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the  discretion
of the discharge authority.

The applicant did not submit  any  new  evidence  or  identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the  discharge  process;  nor
did he provide any facts warranting a change  to  his  RE  code  or
narrative reason for separation.

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
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.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that when his squadron commander  advised  him
he would be able to separate from the Air Force,  he  told  him  it
would be an entry-level separation not  unsatisfactory  entry-level
performance and conduct.  He went to the commander to ask if  there
was a way to be separated without receiving a negative discharge in
order to finish college.  Although he tried, he did  not  past  the
electronics portion of his training.  He did not know that he would
be an electrician nor did he consider himself knowledgeable in that
field.  He was told he would  be  working  with  computer  systems.
Prior to enlisting, he made his interest in computer systems  known
and was advised that the bomber avionics AFSC would  allow  him  to
work with computer systems.  They failed to tell him  he  would  be
performing duties as an electrician.  He would  like  to  join  any
branch of the Armed Forces and requests the opportunity to  fulfill
his dream of having a career in the United States military.

His complete 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice  concerning  the
applicant’s (RE) code.  The  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence
showing that his assigned RE code is in error or  contrary  to  the
prevailing instruction.  The RE code which was issued at  the  time
of applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances  of
his separation and we do not find this  code  to  be  in  error  or
unjust.  We, therefore, conclude that no basis exists upon which to
recommend favorable action on his request that it be changed.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice  warranting  a  change  in  the
narrative reason for separation.  After reviewing  the  applicant’s
submission and the evidence of record, the majority of the Board is
persuaded  that  some  relief  is  warranted.   We  note  that  the
discharge action taken against the applicant was in accordance with
the  applicable  instruction.    However,   after   reviewing   the
applicant’s request and the evidence of record, the majority of the
Board finds the narrative reason for  his  entry-level  separation;
i.e., entry-level performance and conduct, to be overly harsh.   In
our deliberations of this case, it appeared to  us  that  the  word
“conduct” could be misconstrued to infer that  his  separation  for
academic  deficiency  was  also  due  to  misconduct.   While   the
applicant  may  have  had  problems  progressing  in  the  required
technical training courses,  the  majority  of  the  Board  saw  no
evidence  of  misconduct.   Therefore,  in  order  to  correct   an
injustice of  improperly  labeling  the  applicant,  his  narrative
reason for separation should be corrected to accurately reflect the
circumstances of his separation.  In view  of  the  foregoing,  the
majority  of  the  Board  recommends  the  applicant’s  records  be
corrected by deleting the words “and conduct”  from  his  narrative
reason for separation.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the department of the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected  by  deleting  the  words  “and
conduct” from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his  DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty,
issued on 27 March 2003.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-03544 in Executive Session on 13 January  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                 Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The Board recommended denial of applicant’s request for an RE  code
change.   However,  by  a  majority  vote,  the  Board  recommended
granting a change to the narrative reason.  Mr. Peterson  voted  to
deny a change to the narrative reason and elected not to  submit  a
minority report.

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Dec 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Dec 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Jan 05.





                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-03544




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 APPLICANT be corrected by deleting  the  words  "and
conduct" from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for  Separation)  on  his  DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued
on 27 March 2003.









  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency