RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2005-
02417
                                             INDEX  CODE:   100.00,
110.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  5 FEBRUARY 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation  and  reenlistment  eligibility
(RE) code be upgraded.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received an honorable discharge from the Air Force  and  the  RE
code of 2B is either a mistake or an injustice.   He  believes  the
characterization of an honorable discharge  means  the  member  has
completely met the standards of conduct and performance expected of
a military member.  For this reason he believes his reentry code of
2B and his narrative reason for discharge should be upgraded.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 Dec  01,  in  the
grade of airman first class (E-3), for a period of four years.  His
highest grade held was senior airman.

Applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows:

     PERIOD ENDING            OVERALL PROMOTION EVALUATION

      15 Jul 03                             3
      15 Jul 04                             4
       7 Mar 05                             2 (Referral)

On 3 May 05, the squadron commander notified the applicant that  he
was  recommending  he  be  discharged  from  the  Air   Force   for
unsatisfactory performance - failure  to  progress  in  on-the-job-
training (OJT).  The commander stated the following reasons for the
proposed discharge:

     a.  On 27 May 04, member failed his Career Development  Course
(CDC) exam with a score of 64 – minimum passing score was 65.

     b.  On 16 Sep 04, member failed his CDC exam  for  the  second
time with a score of 64 – minimum passing score was 65.

Other derogatory information in the discharge case file included:

Two Memorandums for Record; the first on 28 Oct 02, for being  past
due on his Star Card payment, and the second  on  17  May  03,  for
financial irresponsibility (failure to make a payment  towards  his
Military Star Card).

Between 5 Jun 03 and 5 Nov 04, applicant received seven Records  of
Individual Counseling (RICs) for failure to go and  dereliction  of
duty, financial irresponsibility and failure to pay, being late for
duty,  receiving  a  speeding  ticket,  and  failure  to  follow  a
checklist.  During that same period the  applicant  received  three
Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for failure to make financial payments,
being past due on his Military Star Card payment,  and  failure  to
obey a  lawful  order  to  report  for  physical  training  at  the
scheduled time.

On 15 Aug 03, applicant received a traffic  citation  for  his  car
music being excessively loud.

On 10 Nov 04, applicant received counseling  concerning  a  traffic
violation.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and
after consulting with legal counsel  waived  his  right  to  submit
statements in his own behalf.   On  17  May  05,  the  Staff  Judge
Advocate  found  the  case  file  legally  sufficient  to   support
separation  and  recommended  applicant  be  discharged   with   an
honorable  discharge  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.   On
19 May 05, the discharge  authority  approved  the  separation  and
directed   an   honorable   discharge   without    probation    and
rehabilitation.

On 13 Jun 05, applicant was honorably discharged in  the  grade  of
senior airman, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,  by  reason  of
unsatisfactory performance,  and  was  issued  an  RE  code  of  2B
(discharged under general or other-than-honorable conditions).   He
served 3 years, 6 months, and 2 days of active military service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and  states,  in
part, 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.    The
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 reenlistment eligibility code.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 12 Aug 05, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.   To  date,  a
reply has not been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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
review of the available record, the  discharge  appears  to  be  in
compliance with the governing instruction and we find  no  evidence
to  indicate  applicant’s  separation  from  the  Air   Force   was
inappropriate.  The evidence of record reflects his  discharge  was
based on his unsatisfactory performance,  in  that,  he  failed  to
progress in on-the-job training by failing his  career  development
course examination on two occasions.  In view of this, we  find  no
evidence that the narrative reason for discharge  is  in  error  or
unjust.  Applicant is correct  that  his  reenlistment  eligibility
(RE) code of 2B is incorrect.  The correct code  should  be  RE-2C,
which denotes involuntarily separated with an honorable  discharge.
The code will  be  administratively  corrected  by  the  Air  Force
Personnel  Center.   After  thoroughly   reviewing   the   evidence
submitted in support of applicant’s appeal, we  are  not  persuaded
that a change to a more favorable code is warranted.  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  issue   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 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-2005-
02417  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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Aug 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Aug 05.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair