RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2005-
02948
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00

XXXXXXX                                 COUNSEL:  NONE

XXXXXXX                                 HEARING DESIRED: NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 MARCH 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  2C  be  upgraded  to  allow
reenlistment in the Idaho Air National Guard.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code is making his reenlistment in the Idaho Air National Guard
more difficult.  He  respectfully  requests  the  Board  consider  his
application for changing his reenlistment code.  Please  consider  the
time he has spent in the U.S. Army after he was  discharged  from  the
U.S. Air Force; it was eight years or more. He thinks that if  he  can
learn his job in the Army and progress in his job  as  well,  then  he
will be able to make the same progress if the Board will please  allow
him another chance to show what he is capable of doing. He  knows  the
Board will not regret it.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 June  1983,  in  the
grade of airman basic, for a period of four years.  His highest  grade
held was airman first class.

On 5 October 1984, the 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  was  recommending  the  applicant  receive   an   honorable
discharge based on the following:

     a. On 24 September 1984,  the  applicant  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand for destroying an air conditioning component due to his poor
safety habits and inability to adapt them (safety habits) to his  work
regimen.

     b. On 11 September 1984, the applicant was  counseled  concerning
his job performance being substandard  and  his  inability  to  follow
instructions without continued supervision.

     c. On 5 September 1984, the applicant was asked  to  troubleshoot
an electrical unit consisting of mimicking  items  he  had  previously
seen tested by trainers. He was unable to identify the source  of  the
problems and begin troubleshooting techniques and was counseled.

      d. On 24 August 1984, the  applicant  attempted  to  remove  and
replace  an  electrical  contactor  in  an  air  conditioner  and  had
difficulties replacing the hardware. He was  unable  to  complete  the
task prior to the end of the normal duty day and was counseled.

      c. On 1 August 1984, the applicant received a  memo  for  record
for failure to identify correct size nuts and bolts.

      d. 25 July 1984, the applicant received a Record  of  Individual
Counseling for failure to replace a main circuit breaker inside an air
conditioner.

      e.  25  June  1984,  the  applicant  was  observed  experiencing
difficulty inserting screws inside a control panel and  took  over  an
hour before asking for assistance.

      f. 21 June 1984, the applicant experienced  difficulty  aligning
mobilizers together and was counseled.

Applicant acknowledges receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
after consulting with legal counsel submitted statements  in  his  own
behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case and found  it  legally
sufficient to support separation and recommended applicant receive  an
honorable  discharge  without  probation  and   rehabilitation.    The
discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant
be discharged  with  an  honorable  discharge  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.

On 7 December 1984, applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of
airman first class, under the provisions of AFR 39-10,  Administrative
Separation of Airmen, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, and was
issued an RE code of 2C. He served 1 year, 5 months, and  16  days  of
total active military service.

On 26 November 1985, the Air Force Personnel Board  (AFPB)  considered
and denied the applicant’s request to  change  his  reenlistment  code
(RE).  The  applicant  submitted  several  letters  attesting  to  his
character and abilities, however, they were not enough to overcome the
poor record he accumulated during his short period on active duty. The
Board determined the applicant remains  an  unsuitable  candidate  for
future military service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied and states 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.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 November 2005, 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.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice warranting a change to  his  RE
code.  After a thorough review of  the  evidence  of  record  and  the
applicant’s submission, it is our opinion that given the circumstances
surrounding his separation from the Air  Force,  the  separation  code
assigned  were  proper  and  in  compliance   with   the   appropriate
directives.  The applicant has not provided any evidence  which  would
lead us to believe otherwise.  Therefore, we agree with the Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt its rational as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice. In the  absence  of  persuasive  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.

________________________________________________________________
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-
02948 in Executive Session on 5 January 2006, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Sept 05.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Nov 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 05.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair