RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02294
            INDEX CODE:  110.0; 110.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  4 FEBRUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2C” and her narrative reason  for
separation of “unsatisfactory  performance”  be  changed  to  allow  her  to
enlist in the United States Armed Forces – Navy.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She entered the United States Air Force as a Security Police  officer.   She
was seriously injured during technical training and was on  light  duty  for
twelve weeks.  Her physician advised her that the  rigorous  training  as  a
Security Police officer may further aggravate her injury and he  recommended
further light duty or job reassignment.  She opted for job reassignment  and
was reassigned to Armament Aircraft Systems.  She later found out she  would
be responsible for maintaining all the parts that allow ammunition to  eject
from F-15s.  She wondered how she had been assigned to the job  and  whether
her scores were high enough to be successful in such a  job  classification.
She successfully completed 16 weeks of technical training,  volunteered  for
and received an overseas assignment.

Throughout her two years at Kadena, she participated  in  the  Honor  Guard,
attended classes, volunteered as a  Big  Sister  and  wrote  for  the  local
newspaper.  She was known as an “outstanding”  Airman.   Nothing  about  her
performance was  “unsatisfactory”  until  having  to  test  for  the  Career
Development Course (CDC).  Although she had passed the practice  exams  with
her unit, the test did not reflect the same information covered through  her
unit, so she was ill-prepared.  She had never failed any exam.  Because  she
had previously retrained and had a little over a year left of  reenlistment,
her commander recommended that she be released  from  active  duty  with  an
honorable discharge.  What she did not realize was her DD 214 would  reflect
an honorable  discharge,  but  it  would  also  consist  of  “unsatisfactory
performance” and a reenlistment code which  barred  her  from  reenlistment.
This was never explained to her by her commander or  separations  counselor.
Her separation was not for misconduct or anything of an egregious nature.

Since her discharge, she has graduated with a degree in Business  Management
with a 3.59 GPA.  She has been promoted  several  times  thought  her  Human
Resources Training career.   She  recently  applied  for  officer  candidate
school with the U.S. Navy.  Her recruiter has advised her that her  RE  code
renders her ineligible to reenlist.  she would like another  opportunity  to
serve her country.

In  support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits   her   personal
statement, a copy of her DD 214, a copy of her Enlisted Performance  Reports
(EPRs), and a support letter from the general officer recruiter (Navy),  and
a copy of her employee evaluation.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 January 1996, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the
age of 19 in the grade of airman basic  (E-1)  for  a  period  of  4  years.
After completing basic military and technical training, she was assigned  to
duties as an Aircraft Armament Systems Apprentice.

The applicant received two notifications of CDC examination  failure  on  or
about 29 June 1998 and 8 September 1998, respectively.

On 30 November 1998, the applicant’s commander  notified  her  that  he  was
recommending she be separated from the Air Force  under  the  provisions  of
AFPD-36-32 and AFI 36-3208 because of unsatisfactory performance  –  failure
to progress in on-the-job-training (OJT).  The applicant was advised of  her
rights.  She acknowledged receipt of the  notification,  consulted  counsel,
and waived her right to submit statements on her own behalf.  The  commander
thereafter initiated a recommendation for the applicant’s separation

In a legal review of the discharge case file  dated  7  December  1998,  the
assistant staff judge advocate found the file  was  legally  sufficient  and
recommended that the applicant be  honorably  discharged  without  probation
and rehabilitation.  On 10 December 1998, the discharge  authority  approved
the  recommended  separation  and  directed  the  applicant   be   honorably
discharged.

On 23 December 1998, she was honorably discharged because of  unsatisfactory
performance.  She had served 2 years, 11 months and 14 days on  active  duty
to include 2 years, 2 months and 14 days of Foreign Service.

She has two EPRs with overall ratings of “5”  and  “3,”  respectively.   Her
awards include the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, the Air Force  Overseas
Long Tour Ribbon, and the Air Force Training Ribbon.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   based   on   the
documentation on file in  the  applicant’s  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.  Additionally, the applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing, and she provided no facts  warranting  an  upgrade  of
her discharge.

The complete DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment on 18 August 2006.  As of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an  injustice.   Although  the  actions  taken  to  effect  the
applicant’s discharge and RE code she received  were  accurate,  we  believe
she should be provided the opportunity to apply for enlistment in the  armed
services.  Our recommendation in no way guarantees that she will be  allowed
to return to the Air Force or any branch of the  service.   Whether  she  is
successful in reentering a branch of the armed forces  will  depend  on  the
needs of the service to which application is made.   Therefore,  we  believe
the reason for her separation should be changed to “Secretarial  Authority,”
with a separation code of “KFF,” and her RE code to 3K (Reserved for use  by
HQ AFPC or the Air Force Board for Correction of Military  Records  (AFBCMR)
when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate.)

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to  show  that  on  23  December  1998,  she  was
discharged by reason of “Secretarial Authority,” with a separation  code  of
“KFF” and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2006-
02294 in Executive session on 24 October 2006, under the  provision  of  AFI
36-2603:


      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
            Mr. James L. Sommer., Member
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2006-02294:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Aug 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.




      MICHAEL V. BARBINO
      Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-02294



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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 23 December 1998, she
was discharged by reason of “Secretarial Authority,” with a separation code
of “KFF” and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “3K.”










  JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency