RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00969
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.03
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  5 Oct 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not  allowed  to  retest  after  failing  a  test  during  his
technical school training.  Other airmen were allowed to retest.   He
was also not allowed to delay his separation while  he  appealed  his
discharge from the Air Force.  He has letters of recommendation  from
his instructors to retain him in the Air Force.  These  letters  were
not considered in the decision not to retain him.

Applicant discusses his problems while in technical training and  his
efforts to overcome them.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of  his  response
to  the  discharge  notification,  copies  of  character   statements
submitted in his behalf, a copy of his request for and disapproval of
his request for a delay in responding to the discharge  notification,
and a copy of his DD Form 214.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 6  Jul  04  and
entered training to become a Readiness Helper.  On  17  Dec  04,  the
applicant’s  training  squadron  commander  notified   him   he   was
recommending his  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  entry  level
performance or conduct.  The reason for the  commander’s  action  was
the applicant’s failure to make satisfactory progress in  a  required
training program.  Specifically, the  applicant  failed  three  block
exams resulting in his  disenrollment  from  his  technical  training
course.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on 17 Dec  04,  consulted
counsel, and submitted a  written  statement.   On  22  Dec  04,  the
applicant’s training squadron commander recommended to  the  training
group commander the applicant be discharged for  the  reasons  stated
above with an entry-level separation.  On 28  Dec  04,  the  training
wing staff judge advocate found the  action  legally  sufficient  and
recommended the training group commander approve  the  recommendation
to discharge the applicant and direct his discharge  with  an  entry-
level separation.   On  29  Dec  04,  the  training  group  commander
directed the applicant be discharged with an entry-level  separation.
The applicant was discharged on 29 Dec  04  with  an  uncharacterized
entry-level separation.  The  narrative  reason  for  separation  was
“entry-level performance and conduct.”  The  applicant  was  given  a
“2C” reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code,  “entry-level  separation
without characterization of service.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s  request.   According
to  the  AETC  Form  125A   in   applicant’s   record,   “Record   of
Administrative Training Action,” he  required  extra  supervision  to
stay on task  and  displayed  little  interest  in  course  material.
Applicant displayed little or no confidence.  Based on this behavior,
the instructor recommended applicant not be reclassified into another
career field.

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.

Airmen  are  given  entry-level  separation/uncharacterized   service
characterization when separation is initiated in the first  180  days
of continuous active service.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s representative responded to the Air Force evaluation  and
indicated the applicant should not have been separated based  on  the
following reasons:

        a.  The applicant was 1 of 9 students to  fail  the  Block  2
test out of a total of 19 students.  Only  2  students  scored  above
80%.  They feel that the quality of the instruction was at fault, not
the students.  It was the instructor’s first time instructing and  he
often made reference to some questions that would be on the test that
were not.  Most students relied on his advice, which turned out to be
inaccurate.

        b.  There were other airmen in the course that  failed  three
or more block tests and were allowed to continue in  the  course  and
the Air Force.   They  know  of  one  airman  they  are  certain  was
continued because of the instructor’s previous  assignment  with  her
father.  Further, they note, coincidentally, that of six airmen  that
failed three block tests and  were  allowed  to  continue,  all  were
female.

        c.  The applicant was denied the opportunity to appear before
the Academic Review Board and was represented by the same  individual
who recommended him for discharge.

They further note that  two  of  the  applicant’s  instructors  wrote
letters  of  recommendations  for  him,  which   they   consider   an
endorsement of the applicant’s future potential in the Air Force  and
that the applicant should have been allowed to continue to serve.

In further support of their appeal and  rebuttal  to  the  Air  Force
evaluation,  they  provide  a  statement  from  the  applicant,   the
applicant’s father and two letters of recommendation from two airmen.

The complete response, with attachments, 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 error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request
for reinstatement to the Air Force.   After  reviewing  the  complete
evidence of record, we  do  not  find  the  commander’s  decision  to
discharge the applicant to be arbitrary or capricious.  The applicant
contends he was not provided  an  opportunity  to  appear  before  an
“Academic Review Board” (Faculty Board).  However, we note that AETCI
36-2215,  paragraph  9,  states  that  faculty  boards  are  normally
convened when the review process for  administrative  elimination  is
inadequate to determine facts.  The  applicant’s  case  appears  well
documented and the basis for his discharge clear.  Additionally,  the
issues raised by the applicant in  his  appeal  to  this  Board  were
contained  in  his  response  to  the   notification   of   discharge
recommendation  from  his  commander.    The   applicant   has   made
allegations  that  the  problems  he  experienced  in  training  were
attributable to the poor quality of  the  instruction  he  and  other
students received, that he was treated differently from other  airmen
that failed three or more blocks of instruction, and that one airman,
in particular, was shown favoritism based on  the  instructor  having
served in a  previous  assignment  with  her  father.   However,  the
applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to  substantiate  such
serious allegations and provides no  proof  that  he  reported  these
concerns to his chain of command or to the  Inspector  General  (IG).
In the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  to
recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  Notwithstanding  our  determination  above,  we  note  that   the
applicant’s problems while on active duty appeared to  be  completely
related to academic problems.  He has  provided  several  letters  of
recommendation attesting to his positive attitude and that he was not
a disciplinary problem.  As such we believe that a basis  exists  for
changing  the  narrative  reason  for  his  entry-level   separation.
Previous Boards have determined that  inclusion  of  the  words  “and
conduct” in the narrative reason for separation is overly harsh  when
the  sole  basis  for  the  individual’s   separation   is   academic
deficiency.   Additionally,  while  we  have  determined   that   the
applicant’s discharge was  proper,  we  note  that  his  Reenlistment
Eligibility code of “2C” prevents him  for  reenlisting  in  the  Air
Force as well as other branches of service.  While the applicant  may
not have been qualified to perform duties as a Readiness  Helper,  we
believe he should be given a waiverable RE code,  which  would  allow
the services to determine his suitability for service based on  their
needs and his qualifications at the time.   Therefore,  we  recommend
his records be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

        a.  At the time of his entry-level separation on           29
December 2004, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility Code of “3K.”

         b.  The  words  “and  conduct”  be  deleted  from  Block  28
(Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214, Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued on 29 December 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number  BC-2005-
00969 in Executive Session on 18 May 2005, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

All members voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Apr 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Representative, dated
                 6 May 05, w/atchs.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2005-00969


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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:

            a.  At the time  of  his  entry-level  separation  on  29
December 2004, he was issued a Reenlistment Eligibility Code of “3K.”

            b.  The words “and conduct”  be  deleted  from  Block  28
(Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214, Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued on 29 December 2004.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency