Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02129
Original file (BC-2006-02129.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02129
                 INDEX CODE:  100.06
                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 Jan 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so he can reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told to sign up for aircraft maintenance when he really  wanted
to join the medical field.  His administrative and general scores were
higher than his mechanical score.

The applicant submits his Request/Authorization for Separation and his
DD Form 214. His complete submission, with attachments, is at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  on  15 Nov  05  and,
around 14 Feb 06, began training as an aerospace  maintenance  helper.
However, he scored 68% in three  block  tests,  failing  to  meet  the
minimum passing score of 70%.  He was disenrolled from  his  technical
training course on 23 May 06.

Efforts to improve  the  applicant’s  performance  met  with  negative
results.  Prior to disenrollment,  he  was  counseled  concerning  his
academic  failures,  received  two  hours  of  Special  Individualized
Assistance (SIA), attended Study Skills and Test Anxiety Courses,  and
was washed back once.  During counseling, he  apparently  admitted  he
spent only 30-45 minutes a night studying even  though  two  hours  of
study per day were mandated.  In a separate statement,  the  applicant
indicated it was his decision to choose this career field; however, he
felt that choice had been a mistake.  He indicated he wanted to remain
in the Air Force.  Other than failing to progress in his training, the
applicant’s performance was found to be satisfactory.

On 1 Jun 06, the applicant was notified of his commander’s  intent  to
recommend an honorable discharge  for  failure  to  make  satisfactory
progress in a required training program.   After  consulting  counsel,
the applicant waived his right to submit statements for consideration.
 On 2 Jun 06, the commander recommended  the  applicant  be  honorably
discharged for unsatisfactory performance, citing the reasons given in
the notification letter.  The case was  found  legally  sufficient  on
6 Jun 06,  with  a  recommendation  for  honorable  discharge  without
probation and rehabilitation (P&R).  The discharge authority concurred
on 9 Jun 06.

After 6 months and 29  days  of  active  service,  the  applicant  was
honorably  discharged  in  the  grade  of  airman  on  13 Jun  06  for
unsatisfactory  performance.   He  was  issued  an  RE  code   of   2C
(involuntarily separated with an honorable characterization).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  The discharge  was  consistent  with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority.   The
applicant did not submit evidence or identify any errors or injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing that warranted a  change  to
his RE code.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 4 Aug 06 for review and comment within 30  days  (Exhibit
D).  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
were duly noted, but we are  not  persuaded  his  RE  code  should  be
changed.  Before being recommended for discharge, significant  efforts
had been made to help the applicant improve his academic  performance.
However, by his own admission, he apparently did not apply himself  to
his studies.  At the time members are separated from  the  Air  Force,
they are furnished an RE code predicated upon  the  quality  of  their
service and circumstances  of  their  separation.   After  a  thorough
review  of  the  evidence  of  record,  we  believe  that,  given  the
circumstances surrounding the  applicant’s  separation,  the  RE  code
issued was in accordance with the appropriate directives.   Therefore,
we find no basis upon which to  recommend  favorable  action  on  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 2 November 2006 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
                 Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-02129 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 06.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Jul 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 06.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02977

    Original file (BC-2006-02977.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02977 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 APR 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation be changed to “academic difficulties” rather than “unsatisfactory performance,” and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01591

    Original file (BC-2006-01591.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial of the applicant’s request. ___________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02193

    Original file (BC-2006-02193.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 13 June 2006, the applicant was disenrolled from technical training for academic deficiency. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the words “and conduct” be deleted from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. MARTHA J. EVANS Panel Chair AFBCMR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02536

    Original file (BC-2006-02536.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was separated from the Air Force on 4 Oct 05. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02969

    Original file (BC-2006-02969.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02969 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 APR 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. After carefully reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s uncharacterized separation should be changed to reflect an honorable discharge. An...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03100

    Original file (BC-2006-03100.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 Nov 05, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend an honorable discharge for unsatisfactory duty performance for failing the Block I test and the Block III test twice. The Medical Consultant states the evidence in the record indicates the applicant had been taking several non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications. The preponderance of evidence of record shows that the applicant's medical condition (hip pain) was not of sufficient severity to cause academic...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00727

    Original file (BC-2003-00727.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00727 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ 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. The evidence of record supports the stated reasons for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03698

    Original file (BC-2006-03698.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices during the discharge processing warranting a change in his RE code. The complete HQ AFPC/DPPAE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 Jan 07 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03219

    Original file (BC-2006-03219.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03219 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 Apr 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry code be changed from 4L to a code that would allow him to continue his career in the US Air Force. Additionally, the Board also concluded the USAF Academy Cadet Sanctions...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03219

    Original file (BC-2006-03219.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03219 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 Apr 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry code be changed from 4L to a code that would allow him to continue his career in the US Air Force. Additionally, the Board also concluded the USAF Academy Cadet Sanctions...