RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00624
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED: No

MANADATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 September 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His character of service be changed to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he was being separated, he was not given a chance  to  reclassify
and he was not in any trouble.

No supporting documentation was submitted.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 22 March  2005,
as an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years.

On 27 June 2005, the applicant was notified of his commander's  intent
to  recommend  him  for  discharge  for  entry-level  performance  and
conduct.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.    The applicant failed to make satisfactory  progress  in  a
required training program.  Specifically, he failed the Block  1  exam
once (68%) and the Block 2 exam twice  (68%  and  64%).   The  minimum
passing score is 70%.  As a result of these failures the applicant was
disenrolled from his technical training course on 20 June 2005.

      b.    On or about 2 June 2005, the applicant was derelict in the
performance of his duties in that he failed to refrain from carrying a
cell phone during the duty day.  For this  misconduct,  the  applicant
received an AETC  Form  17,  Student  Record  of  Academic/Nonacademic
Counseling and Comments on 3 June 2005.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel;
that legal counsel had been obtained to assist him; and that  he  also
had right to submit statements in his own behalf, or waive  the  above
rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action
that he had the staff work with the applicant in passing  his  course.
The  staff  administered  the  applicant  4.5  hours  of   Specialized
Individual Assistance (SIA) and  then  allowed  him  to  retest.   The
applicant  was  counseled  and  washed  back  once.   When  approached
concerning his failures, the  applicant  seemed  concerned  about  his
future but was unable to meet academic standards.  The  applicant  had
been unable to attain the passing score required for retention in  the
course.

On of  28  June  2005,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification of discharge and waived his right to consult counsel  and
submit statements in his own behalf.

On 29 June 2005, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge
advocate (SJA) recommended the applicant be discharged with an  entry-
level separation.

On 8 July 2005, the discharge  authority  directed  the  applicant  be
discharged with an entry-level separation.

On 13 July 2005, the applicant was discharged under the provisions  of
Air Force Instruction  (AFI)  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of
Airman (entry-level performance and conduct), with an  uncharacterized
entry-level separation.  The applicant served on  active  duty  for  3
months and 22 days of military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the requested relief be denied.   They  state
based upon the documentation in the applicant's records, they  believe
his discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.   Also,  the  discharge  was
within the sound discretion of the discharge authority. The  applicant
did not submit any evidence or identified  any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing.  He  did  not  provide  any
facts to warrant a change to his character of service.

Air  Force  policy  is  that  entry-level  separations/uncharacterized
service characterizations are given to service members  who  have  not
completed more than  180  days  of  continuous  active  service.   The
Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a service member served less
than 180 days of active service, that it would be unfair to the member
to characterize that service.  The applicant's uncharacterized service
is correct and in accordance with DOD and AFIs.

A complete copy of the AF/DPPRS evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluations was forwarded to the applicant  on
9 March 2007, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   After  careful
consideration of the circumstances of this case and  the  applicant’s
military records, we are  not  persuaded  his  request  to  have  his
discharge upgraded is warranted.  In this respect, the discharge  the
applicant  received   indicates   an   uncharacterized    entry-level
separation for serving  less  than  6  months  of  service  would  be
appropriate considering that the applicant served  3  months  and  22
days of active military service.   Furthermore,  the  applicant  made
unsatisfactory progress in a required training program.  Based on the
documentation  in  the  applicant's  records,  it  appears  that  the
processing of the discharge and the characterization of the discharge
were appropriate  and  accomplished  in  accordance  with  Air  Force
policy.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend favorable action on his request
to have his discharge upgraded.

4.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the existence of an error or an 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 the discharge action taken against the  applicant
was in accordance with the applicable  instruction.   However,  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   inaccurate.    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  13
July 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-00624 in Executive Session on 10 May 2007, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                          Mr. Michael K. Gallogly , Panel Chair
                          Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                          Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

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

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 07.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Mar 07.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 07.




                       MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                       Panel Chair






AFBCMR BC-2007-00624
INDEX CODE:  110.00


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      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 13 July
2005.




                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency