RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03054
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 APR 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His uncharacterized  entry-level  separation  be  changed  to  an  honorable
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires an honorable discharge.   He  states  he  served  six  months  on
active duty.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 January 2006.   He  served
as a survival equipment helper.  On 14 July 2006, applicant was notified  by
his commander of her intent to recommend that he be discharged from the  Air
Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.22.
The specific reasons for this action were as follows.

a.          He was, on or about 1 May 2006, derelict in the  performance  of
his duties in that he failed to complete assigned homework, as  it  was  his
duty to do.  For this, he received a Letter of Counseling  (LOC)  on  2  May
2006.

b.          He did, on or about 1 June 2006, without  authority,  failed  to
go at the  time  prescribed  to  his  appointed  place  for  duty,  to  wit:
mandatory formation.  For this he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

c.    He failed  to  make  satisfactory  progress  in  a  required  training
program.  Specifically, he failed the Block 1, Unit  12,  Test  A;  and  the
Block 2, Unit 5, Test A with scores of 68%, and 58%, respectively.   Minimum
passing score is 70%.  As a result of  these  failures  he  was  disenrolled
from  his  technical  training  program  on  20   June   2006.    Prior   to
disenrollment, he was counseled concerning his academic performance,  washed
back twice  for  further  instruction  and  received  40  hours  of  Special
Individualized  Assistance  (SIA).   Efforts   to   improve   his   academic
performance had met with negative results.

He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the
notification on that same date.  The applicant waived his right  to  consult
counsel and elected not to submit statements on his own behalf.  In a  legal
review of the case file, the staff judge advocate  found  the  case  legally
sufficient and recommended that he be discharged.   On  24  July  2006,  the
discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed that  he
be discharged with an entry-level separation.  Applicant was  discharged  on
27 July 2006.  He served 6 months and 11 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states  the  discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  The discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.

Airmen   are   given    entry-level    separation/uncharacterized    service
characterization  when  separation  is  initiated  in  the  first  180  days
continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if  a
member served less than 180 days continuous  active  service,  it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited  service.
 Therefore, his uncharacterized character  of  service  is  correct  and  in
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.  Applicant  did  not  submit
any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.  He provided no  facts  warranting  a  change  to  his
uncharacterized character of service.

The DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 1 December 2006, the  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  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.  We are not persuaded  by  the  evidence
presented that the uncharacterized entry-level separation  received  by  the
former  member  should  be  changed  to  an  honorable  discharge.   We  are
compelled to note that an uncharacterized separation is not  an  unfavorable
reflection upon the applicant's military service nor should it  be  confused
with other types of separation.   Rather,  an  entry-level  separation  with
uncharacterized service is used in those cases where the member has not  yet
completed six months of service at the  time  separation  proceedings  were,
for  whatever  reason,  initiated.   Hence,  an  uncharacterized  separation
merely connotes the brevity of an individual's  membership  in  the  service
and may not, in and of itself, be viewed as a defamation of  character.   In
instances where a former member has not completed  six  months  of  service,
characterization of his or her service as honorable is normally  appropriate
when extenuating factors exist.  However, after a  thorough  review  of  the
applicant's submission and the evidence of record, we  see  no  evidence  of
any extenuating circumstances in this case.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence indicating that the applicant was deprived of rights  to
which entitled or that inappropriate standards were applied in his case,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2006-
03054 in Executive Session on 23 January 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Sep 06.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Nov 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 06.




                       CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                       Panel Chair