RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03906
            INDEX NUMBER:  100.06

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed  to  permit
reentry into the military.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He doesn’t understand why he received an RE code that would prevent
him from reenlisting in the military when he received an  honorable
discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2  Jan  02,  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1), for  a  period  of  four  years.   His
highest grade held was  airman  (E-2).   The  record  contains  one
Enlisted   Performance   Report,   with   an   overall    promotion
recommendation of 3.

On 24 Feb 03, the applicant received an Article 15 for  failure  to
go at the time prescribed to his appointed place  of  duty,  on  or
about 29 Jan 03, and on or about 31 Jan 03.   Punishment  consisted
of a suspended reduction to the grade of E-1, and 14 days of  extra
duty.  The suspended reduction in grade was vacated on 29  Apr  03,
based on applicant’s failure to go on or about 4 Apr  03,  and  his
dereliction of duties on or about 20 and 21 Mar 03.

On 21 Oct 03, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he
was recommending he be discharged for  unsatisfactory  performance.
The  commander  recommended  the  applicant  receive  an  honorable
discharge.  The reasons for the proposed discharge  were:   (1)  On
29 Jul 03, member failed his Career Development Course (CDC) end-of-
course (EOC) examination with a  score  of  59  percent  –  minimum
passing score was 65 percent; and (2) On 30 Sep 03,  member  failed
his CDC EOC examination with  a  score  of  63  percent  –  minimum
passing score was 65 percent.  Other derogatory  information  cited
by the commander included applicant’s receipt  of  two  letters  of
counseling on 11 Sep and 11 Oct 02, for failure to go; a letter  of
reprimand (LOR) on 25 Oct 02, for failure to  go;  and  an  LOR  on
3 Sep 03, for dereliction of duty.

On 21 Oct 03, applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  notification
and after consulting with legal counsel waived his right to  submit
statements in his own behalf.

On 29 Oct 03, the Wing Staff Judge Advocate  found  the  case  file
legally  sufficient  to  support  discharge  and  recommended   the
applicant  be  discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge   without
probation  and  rehabilitation.   On  31  Oct  03,  the   discharge
authority approved the recommendation for discharge.  Applicant was
honorably discharged on 6 Nov 03, in the  grade  of  airman  (E-2),
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by  reason  of  unsatisfactory
performance.  He was issued an RE Code of 2C [involuntary separated
with an honorable discharge].  He served 1 year, 10 months,  and  5
days of active military service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They stated, in part, 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
and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the   discharge   authority.
Additionally, 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  reenlistment
eligibility code.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant would like those who are making the final decision in his
case to consider other factors  before  making  things  final.   He
realizes the noncompletion of his CDC’s was a big  reason  for  his
discharge.  He had no problem with the hands-on part  of  his  job.
His supervisors had complete confidence in him to do  the  task  at
hand.  He respected rank and got along with others in his squadron.
 He looked out for his fellow airmen making sure  they  didn’t  get
into any illegal activity.  He admits he made  some  mistakes,  but
would like another chance in the Air Force.

Applicant’s response to Air Force evaluation 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.  At the time  a
member is separated from the Air Force, they are  furnished  an  RE
code  predicated  upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and   the
circumstances of their separation.  The assigned code reflects  the
Air Force’s position  regarding  whether  or  not,  or  under  what
circumstances,  the  individual  should  be  allowed  to  reenlist.
Applicant’s  assigned  RE  Code  of  2C  accurately  reflects   his
involuntary separation with an honorable discharge.  After  careful
consideration of the evidence provided, we are not  persuaded  that
the assigned RE code is in error or unjust or that  an  upgrade  of
the RE code is warranted.  In view of the  foregoing,  and  in  the
absence of 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 Docket Number BC-2004-
03906 in Executive Session on 22 February 2005 and         8  March
2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. James E. Short, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jan 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair