RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01591
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 NOV 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  of  2C   (involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level  separation
without characterization of service) be changed  to  a  code  which
will enable him to reenlist in the US Coast Guard.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During basic training and technical school training, he experienced
a lot of personal problems; lost of his  grandparents  in  an  auto
accident and his parents were divorced.  He  thinks  it  is  unfair
that he cannot reenlist because his discharge action was  based  on
academic reasons and not personal problems.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 May 02 for  a
period of 4 years in the grade of airman basic.

On  4  Nov   02,   the   squadron   section   commander   initiated
administrative discharge action against the  applicant  for  entry-
level performance and conduct.  The basis  for  his  recommendation
was:

      On 7 Aug 02, applicant failed his written Test 1,  Version  A
with a score of 60 percent.  Minimum passing score was 70  percent.



      On 8 Aug 02, applicant failed to meet the minimum  qualifying
standard on the M9 pistol, with a score of 19.


      On 9 Aug 02, he failed his written retest, Test 1, Version  B
with a score of 56 percent.  Minimum passing score was 70 percent.


      On 26 Aug 02, applicant failed to meet the minimum qualifying
standard on the M16A2 rifle, with a score of 17 and on  his  second
and third retests, he  scored  15  and  19  respectively.   Minimum
passing score was 25.


      On 3 Sep  02,  he  failed  to  meet  the  minimum  qualifying
standard on the M16A2.


      On 9 Sep 02, applicant failed his written Test 2,  Version  A
with a score of 56 percent.  Minimum passing score was 70  percent.



      On 11 Sep  02,  he  failed  the  Use  of  Force/Deadly  Force
evaluation.  On 17 Sep 02, he failed his written Test 3, Version  A
with a score of 36 percent.  Minimum passing score was 72  percent.
On 9 Oct 02, he failed to achieve  a  passing  score  on  the  Land
Navigation Written Progress Check.  On 17  Oct  02,  he  failed  to
achieve a passing score on the  Land  Navigation  Written  Progress
Check for the second time.

On  that  same  date,  applicant  acknowledged   receipt   of   the
notification and waived his right to consult counsel and to  submit
statements in his own behalf.  On  6  Nov  02,  the  Deputy  Chief,
Adverse Actions found the case to be legally sufficient to  support
separation.   The  discharge  authority   directed   applicant   be
discharged with an entry-level separation.

On 18 Nov 02, applicant  received  an  uncharacterized  entry-level
separation, by reason of “Entry Level Performance and Conduct,” and
was issued an RE code of 2C.  He was credited  with  5  months  and
28 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial of the applicant’s request.   They
found the discharge consistent with the procedural and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally,  that  the
discharge  was  within  the  sound  discretion  of  the   discharge
authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence  or  identify
any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge  processing
and he provided no other facts warranting a change to his RE  code.


They   also   noted   that    airmen    are    given    entry-level
separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation
is initiated in the first 180 days of  continuous  active  service.
The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a member served  less
than 180 days continuous service, it would be unfair to the  member
and the service to characterize their limited service.

HQ AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterated his reasons for discharge and  noted  that  he
did not waive his rights, but stated none was offered to him.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice  warranting  a  change  in  the
reason for separation.  After reviewing the applicant’s  submission
and the evidence of record, we are persuaded that  some  relief  is
warranted.  We note applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge
character of service; however,  the  discharge  appears  to  be  in
compliance with the governing directives and we find no evidence to
indicate that his separation from the Air Force was  inappropriate.
Nonetheless,  after  reviewing  the  applicant’s  request  and  the
evidence of record, we find the narrative  reason  for  his  entry-
level separation; i.e., entry-level performance and conduct, to  be
overly harsh.  In our deliberations of this case, it appeared to us
that the word “conduct” could be misconstrued  to  infer  that  his
separation for academic deficiency  was  also  due  to  misconduct.
While the applicant  may  have  had  problems  progressing  in  the
required technical training courses, we have seen  no  evidence  of
misconduct.   Therefore,  in  order  to  correct  an  injustice  of
improperly  labeling  the  applicant,  his  narrative  reason   for
separation  should  be  corrected   to   accurately   reflect   the
circumstances of his separation.  In  view  of  the  foregoing,  we
recommend the applicant’s records  be  corrected  by  deleting  the
words “and conduct” from his narrative reason for separation.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be  corrected  by  deleting  the  words  “and
conduct” from Block 28 (Narrative Reason  for  Separation)  on  his
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active  Duty,
issued on 18 November 2002.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2006-01591 in Executive Session on 26 September 2006, under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Apr 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Jun 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jul 06.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2006-01591




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 by deleting the
words “and conduct” from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation)
on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, issued on 18 November 2002.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency