RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03006
                                        INDEX CODE:  100.06

                                        COUNSEL:  None

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  3 Apr 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) and separation  program  designator  (SPD)
codes and narrative reason for separation be changed so he  is  eligible  to
join the Air National Guard (ANG).

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a good airman who never misbehaved; he just had a hard  time  keeping
up on  some  concepts  while  in  technical  training  school  for  computer
programming.  He was reclassified as a telephone systems helper,  which  was
more difficult than the first.  The  Air  Force  reshaping  put  him  in  an
electronic job rather than in personnel, finance or information  management.
 Despite his hard work, he could not grasp electronic concepts.   He  had  a
choice  between  reclassification  or  separation.   Considering  his   last
reclassification effort, he chose separation.  He was  not  counseled  about
the separations process.  He should have received an RE code  of  3A  (First
term airman who separates before completing 36 months on current  enlistment
and who has no  known  disqualifying  factors  or  ineligibility  conditions
except grade, skill level, and insufficient total  active  federal  military
service  (TAFMS)),  not   2C   (Involuntarily   separated   with   honorable
discharge).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of  four  years
on 27 Jan 04, in the grade airman first class, and was assigned to the  37th
Training Wing at Lackland AFB, TX.  After basic training,  he  was  assigned
to the 336th Training Squadron at Keesler AFB, MS, in Mar 04.

A 19 Apr 04 Student Counseling form reported the  applicant  had  failed  to
meet the time limits for  the  Block  II  3c  Progress  Check  (PC)  in  the
communications-computer systems programmer apprentice course.  He  also  did
not meet the code requirements  for  the  PC  after  receiving  the  maximum
allowable number of instructor assists in the  maximum  allotted  time.   He
did not appear to have fully grasped the material and had a  difficult  time
during  the  PC.   The  applicant  appeared  to  be  putting  effort  during
classroom practice time and had shown improvement.  The instructor felt  the
applicant could successfully  complete  this  block  if  he  was  given  the
opportunity to see the material again.

Around 16 Jun  04,  the  applicant  was  reassigned  to  another  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC).  However, an Administrative Training  Action  report,
dated 31 Aug  04,  reported  the  applicant’s  academic  deficiency  in  the
telephone systems apprentice course.  The commander indicated the  applicant
was unable to comprehend complex electronic concepts at the current rate  of
presentation and was being eliminated from his  technical  training  course.
As this was his second AFSC,  administrative  separation  was  in  the  best
interests of the applicant and the Air Force.

On 8 Sep 04, the  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s  intent  to
recommend honorable discharge for academic deficiency in two  courses.   The
applicant was advised  of  his  right  to  consult  counsel  and  to  submit
statements on his  behalf.   The  applicant  waived  his  right  to  consult
counsel and submit statements on 8 Sep 05.

On  13 Sep  04,  the  commander  recommended  the  applicant  be   honorably
discharged  for  unsatisfactory  duty  performance  without  probation   and
rehabilitation (P&R).  The recommendation letter noted that no  disciplinary
actions had  been  taken  against  the  applicant,  but  that  P&R  was  not
warranted because he had failed to overcome  his  academic  deficiencies  in
two technical training schools.

Legal review on 13 Sep 04  found  the  case  sufficient  for  discharge  and
recommended the applicant be  administratively  separated  without  P&R  for
unsatisfactory performance for failing to progress in on-the-job training.

On 20 Sep 04, the discharge authority directed the  applicant’s  separation.
As a result, on 28 Sep 04, the applicant was  honorably  discharged  in  the
grade of airman first class after  eight  months  and  two  days  of  active
service for unsatisfactory performance.  His RE code was  2C,  and  his  SPD
code was JHJ (Unsatisfactory Performance).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural  and
substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the
discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant has  not  substantiated  any
errors or injustices and his appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 7 Oct 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we are not persuaded his RE code should be changed.  At  the
time members are 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  applicant  was  unable  to  progress  in  technical
training, first in the computer programming career field and  then  when  he
was reclassified in the telephone systems AFSC.  He contends he should  have
been  reclassified  in  personnel,  finance,  or   information   management.
However, these and other career fields may have  been  fully  manned  and/or
not designated as critical. The Air Force determines the  classification  of
its members and the criticality of career fields based on its needs.   While
we  sympathize  with  the  applicant’s  inability  to  grasp  the  technical
training for these two AFSCs, he has not  established  to  our  satisfaction
that the Air Force was not entitled to determine how best to use  its  human
resources or to separate  him  after  his  unsatisfactory  progress  in  two
AFSCs.   This  inability  drove  his  SPD  code,   which   translates   into
“Unsatisfactory Performance” and  is  also  the  narrative  reason  for  his
discharge.  The applicant’s separation appears to have been in both his  and
the Air Force’s best interests, and his  RE  and  SPD  codes  and  narrative
reason are reflective of his  circumstances.   In  view  of  the  above  and
absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling  basis  on
which to recommend favorable action.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 26 January 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                                  Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                                  Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-
03006 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Oct 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Oct 05.




                                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                             Panel Chair