RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03852

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His uncharacterized entry-level separation be changed so that  he  may
reenlist into the Armed Forces.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a bit young when he failed the  security  specialist  training.
However, he had all intentions to serve his country and now wishes the
error can be resolved so he can have a chance to reenlist.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and a copy of AF Form 293, Application  for  the  Review  of
Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of The United States.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
10 May 1991 for a term of four years. The applicant was  involuntarily
discharged  under  the  provisions  of   AFR   39-10,   Administrative
Separation  of   Airmen   (entry-level   performance)   with   service
uncharacterized. He served 2  months  and  27  days  of  total  active
military service.

On 1 August 1991, the commander notified the member that he was  being
discharged for unsatisfactory entry-level performance.  The  commander
recommended applicant receive an entry level  separation  based  on  a
report of evaluation from the Behavioral Analysis Service, Division of
Mental Health, Wilford Hall Medical Center, which  reported  that  the
applicant was having difficulty in training and  felt  that  applicant
was trying his best.  Applicant’s DSM  III-R  diagnosis  characterized
him as having an adjustment disorder with  mixed  emotional  features.
Applicant’s ability to function in the military  was  noted  as  being
significantly impaired.  The applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification of discharge and waived his rights to consult with  legal
counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. The base legal office
reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to   support
separation.  They recommended applicant be separated from the  service
with an entry-level separation. The discharge authority  approved  the
separation and directed  that  the  applicant  be  separated  with  an
uncharacterized entry-level separation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial  and  stated   that   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.  This discharge was within the discretion of the
discharge  authority.   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 character
of service or his reenlistment eligibility 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.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated he  acknowledge
the notification of the discharge.  As the  time  passed,  he  thought
that if at the time of his separation of mixed emotions, he was pushed
and rushed through the Air Force separation process.   Though  he  was
younger, he did his best.  He may have made an irresponsible  decision
to obtain counsel, but over the years, he knew better  and  he  should
have filed for correction or consulted with legal counsel.  He has  no
original copies of any military records to actually  help  or  support
him with his comments.   However,  he  contends  that  he  was  rushed
through the separation, and he has matured over the years  to  realize
that he should have contested this decision.

Applicant’s complete submission 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.  After  careful  consideration
of the circumstances of this case and the  evidence  provided  by  the
applicant, we are not persuaded that the applicant's discharge and the
reenlistment code he received were in  error  or  unjust.   The  Board
notes the discharge and RE  code  "2C"  that  the  applicant  received
indicates an uncharacterized entry-level separation for  serving  less
than 6 months of service that would be  appropriate  considering  that
the applicant served 2 months and 27 days of active military  service.
While the applicant’s contentions are duly noted, we  agree  with  the
opinions and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt  its  rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not established
that he has 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 in this application.

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 issues involved. Therefore,
the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of a 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 Docket  Number  BC-2004-
03852 in Executive Session on 24 February 2005, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member









The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Nov 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 10 Jan 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 05.
      Exhibit E. Applicant's Response, 31 Jan 05.




      MICHAEL J.NOVEL
      Panel Chair