RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01835
            INDEX NUMBER:  100.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 Dec 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge from the Air Force  on  28  Apr  05  for  unsatisfactory
performance be declared void and removed from his record.

He be reinstated to active duty in the  Air  Force  and  permitted  to
enter the retraining program previously approved for him.

In his rebuttal, the applicant requests that if  the  Board  does  not
grant the two requests above, in  the  alternative,  they  change  his
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code to  one  that  will  allow  him  to
reenter military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  administrative  discharge  package  prepared  on   him   contains
erroneous and unjust documentation.

His squadron commander was not aware  that  an  unfavorable  statement
submitted to him on the applicant by a  senior  NCO  within  the  unit
contained faulty and unjust statements.

His squadron commander did not know  about  the  favorable  draft  EPR
prepared on him by his original rater and  that  it  was  deliberately
kept away from him so others could  pursue  wrongful  actions  against
him.  If his commander had been aware of these matters, he would  have
been allowed to retrain and remain in the Air Force.

There has been no official documentation recorded  concerning  alleged
unruly behavior or actions by him during the period of  the  contested
EPR.   He  has  never  been  counseled  or  allowed  to  correct   any
deficiencies that have been identified in any correspondence.

He never received feedback on his performance before the contested EPR
was prepared because paperwork was backdated 256 days to assign him  a
new supervisor to prepare the EPR.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant   provides   copies   of
documentation contained in the discharge action initiated against him,
a statement of unfavorable matters prepared by his father,  a  retired
Air Force senior NCO, a copy of a favorable draft EPR prepared by  his
originally assigned supervisor, copies of documentation pertaining  to
a Congressional complaint filed by his father, and copies of favorable
communications received during his time in the Air Force.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered  active  duty  on  10  Sep  02  on  a  six  year
enlistment.  He served as a Systems Operations Technician.   A  resume
of the applicant’s EPR ratings follows:

      Closeout Date               Overall Rating

       *15 Apr 04                       4
      **25 Mar 05                       2

*  Initial report:  Applicant marked down to next to lowest  block  in
factor  “How  well  does  ratee  comply   with   individual   training
requirements?”

**  Contested  referral  report.   The  report  was  referred  to  the
applicant because of the lowest ratings in  performance  factors  4,5,
and 6 in section III and the comments in section V.  In  his  response
to the referral EPR, the applicant noted that he found out  he  had  a
new supervisor only 21 days before the closeout date of the  EPR.   He
indicated that he received his initial feedback on  the  same  day  he
found out  he  had  a  new  supervisor  and  was  not  told  that  his
performance was unsatisfactory.  However, when the EPR  was  completed
21 days later, his supervisor wrote “unacceptable patterns of  conduct
on/off duty,”  “continued  incidents  of  irresponsible/unprofessional
behavior,” and “compromised  integrity  on  several  occasions.”   The
applicant indicated he had not been in any trouble off duty,  but  did
receive a letter of counseling (LOC) and letter of reprimand (LOR) for
his  on-duty  conduct.   He  acknowledged  he  was  late  on  multiple
occasions, but had apologized for being late and had tried his best to
live up to the standards expected of him.  The applicant  stated  that
while he had failed his CDC end-of-course test twice,  he  had  always
maintained proficiency in his job.  He noted that  after  failing  his
CDC test twice, he was given the opportunity to retrain  and  attached
copies of letters of support he had received in his effort to retrain.
 After  considering  the  applicant’s  letter,  the  additional  rater
concurred with the rater.   The  additional  rater  indicated  in  his
comments that the applicant’s inability to complete  his  5-level  CDC
“initiated removal” from his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).  He also
commented  that  the  applicant  “continuously   makes   irresponsible
choices; requires constant direct supervision—not currently  promotion
ready.”

On 14 Mar 05, the  applicant’s  squadron  commander  documented  in  a
memorandum for record the progression of events surrounding  decisions
made concerning the applicant’s two CDC failures,  the  processing  of
his exception to  policy  for  reclassification  and  retraining,  and
finally, his continuous pattern of substandard behavior in the interim
of the waiver processing.  The  commander  noted  that  shortly  after
taking command of the unit, he was required to perform  a  commander’s
evaluation and assessment of the applicant since he failed his CDC end-
of-course exam for the second time.  As part of the evaluation, he was
required to review the training  records  and  commander’s  evaluation
worksheet (performed four months earlier).  The previous commander had
accomplished  the  evaluation  worksheet.   The   previous   commander
observed that the applicant was entered in a newly  published  set  of
CDCs, that attention to detail by the applicant  and  his  supervisors
was lacking, that appropriate supervisory involvement was missing, and
that the applicant  experienced  some  personal  challenges  with  his
family that may have contributed to his first failure.   The  previous
commander approved the applicant for his second test  based  on  these
observations.

On or about 15 Jul 04, the unit was notified that he applicant  failed
his second end-of-course exam.  On 1 Sep 04,  the  commander  reviewed
the applicant’s training record  and  his  personal  information  file
(PIF).  He noticed that the  applicant  had  only  minimal  derogatory
information in his PIF.  Also according to  the  applicant’s  training
records, he had spent over 112 hours training for his second exam  and
achieved a 92.5 percent average on his unit review exams.

According to the commander, “due to the  technical  nature”  of  their
profession, he considered but declined to request a CDC waiver for the
applicant based on two reasons:

        a.  He did not believe the Air  Force  could  afford  to  have
someone operating and maintaining the multi-million dollar network who
could not attain the Air Force’s minimum standard.

        b.  He did not want  anyone  else  in  the  unit  to  get  the
impression that failing their CDCs is not a major negative issue.

When the commander engaged with  squadron  leadership  concerning  the
applicant’s situation he states he received mixed recommendations from
the applicant’s supervisor, flight superintendent,  flight  commander,
the squadron  senior  enlisted  manager,  and  first  sergeant.   Some
stressed that the applicant might still have something  to  offer  the
Air Force and could  succeed  in  another  Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(AFSC).  Several others argued he had had his opportunity and that  he
had always been on the edge of trouble, but never bad enough  to  have
it documented.  In addition, with the force shaping challenges  facing
the Air Force, some recommended he be separated.  When  the  commander
reviewed  the  applicant’s  record,  he  noticed  that  he  had   been
transferred from various supervisors  due  to  deployments  and  other
reasons.  After interviewing the  applicant,  considering  the  strong
recommendation of his immediate supervisor, and the lack of derogatory
information in his PIF, he chose to pursue the  exception  to  policy.
He tasked two senior NCOs with determining the  process  required  for
the applicant to build a  waiver  package.   On  22  Dec  04,  HQ  ACC
notified the unit that the exception to policy was approved.  On 4 Jan
05,  the  applicant  was  officially  presented  his  reclassification
package and instructions.  His suspense for the package was 11 Jan 05.
 He finally completed and returned it on 14 Feb 05.

In the interim period, the applicant had  his  AFSC  removed  and  his
access to the network removed.   The  commander  states  it  was  also
believed the applicant had a tendency of  “cutting  corners,”  and  it
also appeared that the applicant was stalling  his  AFSC  application.
When confronted by one of the designated senior  NCOs,  the  applicant
presented conflicting reasons for the delay.  The commander states  he
asked his flight  commander  to  insure  the  applicant  was  actively
employed and to not rule out utilizing him in other  flights.   During
the month of Feb, the commander states he received tidbits of negative
information that the applicant was not conducting himself  as  someone
who had been given a second chance and that he had  serious  integrity
problems.  The commander discussed the applicant’s involvement  in  an
off-duty party where one airman died and the applicant himself was  so
intoxicated an ambulance was called, although  the  applicant  refused
transport  and  service.   The  commander  also  notes  the  applicant
received a letter of counseling for being  repeatedly  late  to  work.
The commander states that the applicant surfaced  additional  problems
by making false statements when he was caught changing his story.  The
commander notes that on 9 Mar 05, the  applicant’s  former  additional
rater delivered a document describing his reservations concerning  the
applicant’s integrity and ability to adapt  to  the  military  way  of
life.  The commander indicates that after  reading  this  document  he
could not allow the applicant to be transferred to  another  unit  and
realized he had made the wrong decision in pursuing a waiver  to  keep
the applicant in the Air Force.

On 10 Mar 05, the commander had the applicant  report  to  his  office
along  with  his  supervisor  and  other  supervisory  personnel.   He
explained to the applicant he could no longer recommend him to another
unit commander, that he had  lost  confidence  in  his  integrity  and
ability to make good decisions when  no  one  was  standing  over  his
shoulder.  He advised the applicant he was going to  document  all  of
the events that had occurred since his second failure and take it  all
to the legal office to review his options.  The commander recounts his
discussion with the applicant and his frustration that the  applicant,
by his actions, had forced him to reevaluate his original decision  to
support his reclassification.

On 14 Apr 05, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him  he  was
recommending his discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  unsatisfactory
performance,  specifically,  failure  to  progress   in   his   Career
Development Course (CDC).  The commander recommended  the  applicant’s
service  be  characterized  as  honorable.   The   reasons   for   the
commander’s actions were:

        a.  On or about 15 Jul 04, the applicant  failed  his  5-level
CDC end-of-course examination for the second time.

        b.  On or about 25 Mar 04, the applicant  failed  his  5-level
CDC end-of-course examination for the first time.

The applicant acknowledged  receipt  on  14  Apr  05.   The  applicant
consulted counsel  and  submitted  statements  for  the  commander  to
consider.  The applicant noted in his response to  the  commander  his
background and how he came to be  a  member  of  the  Air  Force.   He
discussed  various  recognitions  he  had  received.   The   applicant
indicated that he took  full  responsibility  for  his  CDC  failures.
However, he  indicated  that  he  was  never  counseled  by  the  unit
commander after his first CDC failure  as  required  by  AFI  36-2201.
After his second failure, his commander, who had changed, followed Air
Force policy.  Applicant notes that  while  studying  for  his  second
test, numerous complications arose.   He  did  not  feel  prepared  to
retest when his test was scheduled forty days after his first failure.
 He requested and was granted an extension.  On the  rescheduled  test
date, he was involved  in  an  auto  accident,  his  wife  was  having
complications with a pregnancy, and so he was not mentally prepared to
test.  He was again  rescheduled  to  test  on  or  about  8  Jul  05.
However, on     4 Jul 05, his wife went into labor and delivered on  5
Jul.  He again requested his test be rescheduled, but was told he  was
out of time when he had until late Aug or early Sep.  He retested  and
felt he had passed, but failed  by  three  questions.   The  applicant
discussed a statement written by his former  additional  rater,  which
recommended  suspension  of  his  security  clearance  and  access  to
classified  information.   The  applicant  ended  his   statement   by
requesting retention in the Air Force and to be allowed to retrain.

The applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the  wing  commander
the applicant be discharged for the reasons indicated  above.   On  21
Apr 05, the wing staff judge advocate (SJA) found the discharge action
initiated against the applicant legally sufficient and recommended the
wing commander discharge the applicant with service  characterized  as
honorable without an offer of probation and rehabilitation.  On 27 Apr
05, the wing commander directed the  applicant’s  honorable  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged on
 28 Apr 05 for unsatisfactory performance  with  a  “2C”  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code,  “Involuntarily  separated  with  an  honorable
discharge.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial  of   the   applicant’s   request   for
reinstatement.  Based on documentation on file in the master personnel
record,  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 complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s appeal.   In  support  of
his argument of unfair treatment by his commander and certain  members
of his  supervisory  chain,  the  applicant  contends  a  “draft”  EPR
allegedly prepared by his original supervisor was  “deliberately  kept
away” from his commander “for others to pursue wrongful actions.”   He
also maintains that no “official documentation” exists concerning  his
alleged unruly behavior during the period in question and that he  had
not been afforded the opportunity to correct any  noted  deficiencies.
Lastly, the applicant claims he was never provided mandatory  feedback
sessions because his supervision was backdated approximately 256  days
to allow another NCO to prepare his EPR.  The  applicant  believes  if
his commander had been aware of  these  matters,  his  retraining  and
retention would have been permitted.  AFPC/JA provides  the  following
response to the applicant’s major assertions:

        a.  EPRs:  The unsigned draft EPR provided  by  the  applicant
rates him an overall “4” and states he  is  worthy  of  retention  and
retraining.  According to the applicant his  supervisor  at  the  time
prepared this EPR prior to deploying for  120  days.   The  Air  Force
instruction governing the  preparation  of  EPRs  prohibits  providing
these types of documents to airmen to avoid  issues  exactly  of  this
nature.  This draft EPR is clearly a work in progress  and  is  not  a
final official document.  AFPC/JA opines that the final  EPR  received
by the applicant most accurately  reflects  his  work  and  behavioral
qualities during that rating period.

          b.  Misbehavior   Documentation.    Not   withstanding   the
applicant’s claim to the contrary, several acts of misconduct  on  his
part were formally addressed and he was provided  the  opportunity  to
respond to them.  He received a letter of counseling (LOC) on  14  Feb
05 for being late to work and a letter of reprimand (LOR) on 3 Mar  05
for a variety of offenses, including late  to  work,  making  a  false
statement, and failure to follow squadron policies.  Additionally, the
applicant received a memorandum from  his  supervisor  on  10  Sep  03
regarding sexual harassment guidelines  after  he  made  inappropriate
remarks about his personal sexual habits to two women.  While true the
memorandum  given  to  the  commander  by  the  applicant’s   previous
additional rater references assertions:

        a.  
specific acts of misbehavior on the applicant’s  part  that  were  not
addressed in  any  administrative  or  nonjudicial  actions,  for  the
applicant  to  claim  there  is  no  official  documentation  of   his
misconduct and that he had not been given the chance  to  correct  his
deficiencies borders on being disingenuous.

          c.  Administrative   Feedback.    AFPC/JA   discusses    the
circumstances that may have caused the applicant to  receive  feedback
so close to the closeout date of the EPR.  However,   they  note  that
the governing AFI clearly states that failure to receive feedback does
not invalidate the performance report for that period.

AFPC/JA notes there are no procedural irregularities that affected the
applicant’s due process rights and he has not provided any evidence to
show that denial of his reclassification and subsequent discharge  was
unjust.  The applicant and  his  family  members  offer  a  series  of
largely  self-serving  and  unsubstantiated  letters  suggesting  that
certain  NCOs   in   his   unit   inappropriately   orchestrated   his
administrative separation.  However, the applicant  does  not  contest
that his two CDC failures properly subjected him to an  administrative
discharge action for unsatisfactory performance.  It is clear from the
record that the applicant’s commander gave  significant  consideration
to all the evidence available  before,  understandably,  changing  his
mind that it was in the best interest of the Air Force to separate the
applicant.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant  indicates
that he does not disagree with  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208  and
accepts full responsibility for his CDC failures.  However, he asserts
that  the  Air  Force  evaluation  did   not   discuss   the   unusual
circumstances surrounding his scheduled testing.  He  emphasizes  that
his objection is not being afforded the opportunity  to  retrain  into
another career field after it was approved by the Major Command.

The applicant states that the Air Force evaluation  does  not  address
the unjust and unfair treatment he believes he received by  Air  Force
officials who accomplished  the  cancellation  of  his  retraining  to
coincide with the discharge action.  The applicant questions  what  is
meant by the phrase  “cutting  corners”  that  is  referenced  in  the
evaluation and was used by another Air Force  official  in  his  case.
The applicant asserts that this perceived problem was never  addressed
to him at any time by  his  superiors.   He  asks  several  rhetorical
questions, e.g., “Am I at fault for trying to find innovative ideas to
do  business,  while  staying  within  the  boundaries  of  Air  Force
directives?”  The applicant asserts if he knew he was doing wrong,  he
would have corrected his actions.

The applicant addresses the comment in the advisory that  it  appeared
he was stalling his AFSC application and that he presented conflicting
stories when confronted.  He states this is a misleading  comment  and
that he never intended to stall or to make excuses about being  unable
to meet the required suspense of 11 Jan 05.  He states it was  because
of the extreme frustration he had in trying to get  appointments  with
all the various sections  to  conduct  the  required  interviews.   He
states he tried to properly report the problems he was having  to  his
supervisors, but indicates they saw them as excuses and didn’t seem to
care.  He felt that the individuals who  wanted  him  discharged  were
responsible for not helping him to achieve the required deadline.

The applicant provides a statement to address the comments provided by
AFPC/JA in the following areas:

        a.  Discussion.  The applicant states that the  draft  EPR  is
not an “allegedly” reported item.  It did exist and he  references  an
attached memorandum provided  by  the  individual  that  wrote  it  to
substantiate its existence.  He notes that his previous  rater  states
that the rater that wrote the official report “had little to no actual
experience or supervisory  time”  with  the  applicant  and  that  the
rater’s only concern was to get the applicant out of  the  Air  Force.
The applicant  opines  that  the  advisory  opinion  might  have  been
different if they would have had this statement.

        b.  EPR.  The applicant states that  his  previous  supervisor
actually wrote the draft EPR in question, was his  official  reporting
official, observed his performance for the  entire  reporting  period,
and submitted it as a final, “favorable” EPR while TDY.  Upon learning
that his reporting official was being changed  by  backdating  by  256
days his assigned supervisor, the  applicant  contacted  his  previous
supervisor to determine “what  was  happening.”   The  previous  rater
provided him the unsigned copy to show that he had written a favorable
EPR and submitted it as a final.  He wanted to include this  with  his
rebuttal statement submitted after consulting the Area Defense Counsel
(ADC).  He notes that his rebuttal statement was  never  mentioned  by
the advisory opinion writer.

The applicant notes that the Air Force evaluation states that the  AFI
regarding preparation of EPRs prohibits writing “working reports.”  He
further notes that the referral report prepared on him  was  backdated
some 256 days and was written by another  NCO  not  in  his  chain  of
command who did not observe his performance  during  the  period.   He
states he believes the AFI prohibits these practices as well.

The applicant states that the Air Force advisory opinion  states  that
the final EPR he received “most accurately”  reflected  his  work  and
behavioral qualities during that reporting period.   He  asserts  that
the advisory opinion failed to address the  favorable  issues  in  his
record.  He recounts the many favorable letters he received and  notes
they are dated within the period of the contested EPR.   He  concludes
that the  conflicting  evidence  substantiates  his  belief  that  the
contested report was written to accomplish  the  cancellation  of  his
approved retraining package and to coincide with his  separation  from
the Air Force.

        c.  Misbehavior  Documentation.   The  applicant  acknowledges
that he received a LOC and LOR for being late for duty.   However,  he
states that  the  advisory  opinion  fails  to  address  his  rebuttal
statements, indicating he had permission from his NCOIC to return late
after attending an office function.  These documents did not reflect a
degradation of his work being performed.

        d.  Administrative Feedback.  The applicant indicates he  does
not believe he has failed in his  burden  to  establish  an  error  or
injustice warranting granting of the relief  he  has  requested.   The
applicant opines that the preponderance of  evidence  exists  to  show
that the actions taken were done to accomplish his separation from the
Air Force based on fabricated and undocumented information.  He states
the following documents in his case file support his case:

        a.  The favorable EPR written by his original  supervisor  was
not utilized.

        b.  The referral EPR he received was backdated  256  days  and
written by an NCO who was not involved with his work  structure  chain
and had no observation of his duty performance.

        c.  His rebuttals to the  LOC,  LOR,  and  proposed  discharge
action.

        d.  Thirteen  favorable  letters  on  his  character  and  job
performance.

The applicant opines  that  the  AFPC/JA  advisory  opinion  fails  to
address the lack of documentation to support the issues  and  concerns
reported by his commander and his previous additional rater.  He poses
the question to the Board that if his performance was so bad, why  was
he  never  informed  or  counseled  and   allowed   to   correct   the
deficiencies.  He notes that the performance  feedback  was  only  two
weeks before the closeout and did not provide him the  opportunity  to
correct the  noted  deficiencies.   He  disagrees  with  the  advisory
opinion conclusion that he did not suffer prejudice as a result of the
possible anomaly regarding the required feedback session.

The applicant asks that if the Board determines that reinstatement  is
not warranted, his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  be  changed  to
one that will allow him to reenter military service.

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

The applicant submitted an additional letter to correct two errors  in
his initial rebuttal:

        a.  In the EPR section of his rebuttal, he states  that  where
he indicated his EPR was written by another NCO “who was not”  in  his
chain of command it should read that the EPR was  written  by  another
NCO “in” his chain of command, but he did not observe his  performance
during the rating period.

        b.  In the Administrative feedback  section  where  he  listed
supporting documents, the second item should read  that  the  referral
EPR he received was  “written  by  an  NCO  who  was  within  my  work
structure chain,” rather than “written by an NCO who was not  involved
with my work structure chain.”

The applicant’s complete additional submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting  reinstatement  of  the
applicant to active duty.  The applicant contends that  the  commander
made his decision to revoke his approved retraining  and  to  separate
him from active duty because he was unaware  that  a  senior  NCO  who
previously served as the applicant’s additional rater made “faulty and
unjust” statements in a letter written regarding the  applicant.   The
applicant further contends the  commander  was  unduly  influenced  by
individuals in the unit that  wanted  the  applicant  discharged.   In
support of these claims, the applicant provides a favorable draft  EPR
prepared by the individual he claims actually  supervised  him  during
the period of the referral EPR he received.  The applicant opines that
if the commander “had been aware about the existence of these matters,
then my approved retraining and retention in the Air Force would still
exist.”  However, we note  that  the  commander  was  aware  of  these
matters before he finalized his decision to  separate  the  applicant.
The commander indicates his concurrence with the  referral  EPR.   The
commander’s review is the final  action  and  would  have  included  a
review of the  comments  of  the  rater,  additional  rater,  and  the
response provided by  the  applicant.   Included  in  the  applicant’s
response to the referral EPR were comments regarding the change of his
rater and the draft EPR  written  by  the  individual  he  claims  was
assigned as his rater for most of the rating period.  However, we note
the applicant has not provided official  documentation  to  show  that
anyone other than the rater of record on the referral EPR was assigned
as his rater during this period or  to  support  his  claim  that  the
assignment of his rater was backdated  by  256  days.   Regarding  the
issue of the unfavorable letter written by  the  applicant’s  previous
additional rater, the  applicant  commented  on  this  letter  in  his
response to the proposed discharge  action.   When  considering  these
facts along with the detailed  memorandum  written  by  the  commander
concerning actions taken in the applicant’s case, it does  not  appear
that the commander’s actions were either arbitrary or  capricious  and
were completely within his discretionary authority.  Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  Notwithstanding our determination above regarding  reinstating  the
applicant to active duty, we note that the evidence of record indicates
that the applicant was capable  of  satisfactory  duty  performance  at
times.  It also appears there may have been  extenuating  circumstances
that contributed to some of the problems the applicant experienced.  We
note the commander’s comments regarding his initial decision to request
a waiver  to  allow  the  applicant  to  retrain.   While  insufficient
evidence has been presented to overturn the  commander’s  decision,  we
believe the applicant should be provided the opportunity to  apply  for
reentry into military service.  As such, we recommend his  reenlistment
eligibility code be changed to a waiverable code thereby  allowing  the
military services to determine if they want to accept him  for  further
service.  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  at  the  time  of  his
honorable discharge on 28 April 2005,  he  was  issued  a  Reenlistment
Eligibility Code of “3K.”

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2005-
01835 in Executive Session on 21 September 2005, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 May 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Jul 05.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 9 Aug 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Aug 05.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Aug 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Aug 05.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2005-01835


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 at
the time of his honorable discharge on 28 April 2005, he was issued
a Reenlistment Eligibility Code of “3K.”






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency