RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01115
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  13 OCTOBER 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)  Code,  Narrative  Reason  and  Separation
Code be changed so he  may  join  the  Air  National  Guard.   In  addition,
applicant requests he be promoted to the grade of senior airman.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He failed his career development course because he was deployed and did  not
study.  They offered to reclassify him and when he refused  they  discharged
him with negative remarks.  If he would have agreed to the  reclassification
he would have been promoted to senior airman (E-4).

Applicant provides no supporting documentation.  His complete submission  is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic (E-1) on 8 June 1993.  Applicant  received  three  EPRs  with  overall
ratings of 4.

On 30 January  1997,  applicant  was  notified  by  his  commander  that  in
accordance  with  AFPD  36-32  and  AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.26,  he  was
recommending the applicant  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  with  his
service  characterized  as  honorable.   The   specific   reason   for   the
commander's action was that the applicant failed to make progress in on-the-
job training, Career Development  Course  (CDC),  failing  the  CDC  end-of-
course (EOC) exam twice with scores of 48 and 62 percent.

The applicant was advised of his  rights  in  this  matter.   The  applicant
acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  on  that  same  date  and  the
commander initiated discharge proceedings.  The applicant consulted  counsel
and waived his right to submit statements on his own  behalf.   In  a  legal
review of the discharge case  file,  the  staff  judge  advocate,  found  it
legally sufficient and recommended that the  applicant  be  discharged  from
the Air Force  with  an  honorable  discharge.   On  7  February  1997,  the
discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from  the  Air
Force with an honorable  discharge  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.
Accordingly,   applicant   was   discharged   on   18 February   1997    for
“Unsatisfactory  Performance”  with  an  RE  code  of   2C,   “Involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level  separation  without
characterization of service.”  He had served 3 years, 8 months and  11  days
on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that 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 AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB  recommends  denial.   DPPPWB  states  that  a  review  of   the
applicant’s record reveals he was not recommended for  promotion  to  senior
airman on 28 October 1996 for  twice  failing  his  CDCs.   The  AFPC/DPPPWB
complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26  May
2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  the  date,  this  office
has not received a response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request  that  his
narrative reason for separation and RE Codes be changed.   The  evidence  of
record indicates he was involuntarily discharged for failure to progress  in
on-the-job training, with a corresponding separation code of  JHJ,  and  was
assigned an RE code of 2C.  No evidence has been presented that  would  lead
us to believe the  reason  for  his  separation  and  separation  code  were
improper or contrary to the  governing  directives  under  which  they  were
effected, or that the RE code was inappropriately assigned.  In view of  the
foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to  the  contrary,  the
applicant’s requests are not favorably considered.

4.  In regard to the applicant's request that he be promoted  to  the  grade
of senior airman, after a thorough review of  the  evidence  of  record,  we
find no evidence to show that the applicant was  recommended  for  promotion
to senior airman.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation
of the Air Force office or primary responsibility and  adopt  its  rationale
expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,  the  applicant's  request
that he be promoted to the grade of senior airman is not possible.

5.    The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to  give  the
Board  a  clear  understanding  of  the  issues  involved  and  a   personal
appearance, with or without legal counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that  understanding.   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 probable 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-2006-01115
in Executive Session on 18 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr, Member
                 Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
01115 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 06.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 21 Apr 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Apr 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 06.



                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair