RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03076
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                  HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  be  changed  from  2K,  "First-term,
second-term, or career airman considered but not selected  for  reenlistment
under the SRP" to a code that permits his return to military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He takes full responsibility  for  failing  his  Career  Development  Course
(CDC).  Unfortunately, he did not have any control over his actual  stay  in
the military.  He pushed hard for a CDC waiver without any success. To  this
day, he believes he deserved a waiver based on his  performance  within  his
career field.  In just two years, he earned the Army Achievement Medal,  Air
Force Commendation Medal and the Humanitarian Service Medal along  with  two
certificates of appreciation awards.  He believes  his  RE  code  is  unjust
because of his military record itself.  He still  has  a  strong  desire  to
serve his country.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal letter,  a  copy
of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge  from  Active  Duty
and copies of his awards.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  on  16  June  1999  for  a
period of four  years.   On  5  September  2001,  he  was  notified  by  his
commander of his intent to recommend he be discharged  from  the  Air  Force
under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Air Force Military Training and AFI  36-
3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, chapter 5,  Failure  to  Progress
in On-the-Job Training (OJT).  The specific reasons for  this  action  were,
on  or  about  28 December  2000,  he   failed   his   End-of-Course   (EOC)
examination.  On 15 May 2001, he failed his EOC for the second  time,  as  a
result he was recommended for discharge.

The applicant consulted counsel and submitted statements on his own  behalf.
 In a legal review of his case  the  base  legal  office  found  it  legally
sufficient and recommended an honorable discharge.  On  26  September  2001,
the discharge authority approved the separation  and  ordered  an  honorable
discharge.  On the same day, he was discharged in the grade of airman  first
class with an honorable discharge. His narrative reason for  separation  was
"Unsatisfactory Performance."

He served 2 years, 3 months and 11 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states they did not find any errors  or
injustices and the applicant did not submit evidence of  any.   DPSOA  notes
the correct RE code for such a separation is 2C  and  recommends  the  Board
change the applicant's RE code from 2K to 2C, "Involuntarily separated  with
an honorable discharge; or entry level separation  without  characterization
of service."

The complete DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating after speaking with an Air Force  member  he
learned neither of the codes suggested in the advisory  are  acceptable  for
return  to  military  service.   He  would  need  a  waiver  which  is   not
guaranteed.   As  stated  in  his  request,  "An  honorable   discharge   is
appropriate since the airman's  service  has  met  Air  Force  standards  of
conduct and performance of  duty".   He  also  did  not  have  a  record  of
disciplinary actions or derogatory data.  If this is correct, why is  it  he
cannot receive a RE code that would  allow  him  to  continue  his  military
service.  He takes full responsibility for failing his  test  and  while  he
and his  supervisor  had  their  personal  differences,  not  once  did  his
supervisor or commander complain about his performance.  He always made  the
Air Force his top priority and wore his uniform proudly  until  the  day  he
was given his release papers.  His application does  not  mention  the  mock
test he did pass, nor does it mention his supervisor supported the  idea  of
giving him a CDC waiver.

His complete response is at 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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice to  warrant  changing  his  reenlistment
eligibility  (RE)  code.   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   office   of   primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   We  feel
compelled to note that if he desires  to  do  so,  the  applicant  has  the
available option of applying for enlistment into another branch of  service
if they are willing to waive his RE code.  Whether or not he is  successful
in his attempts to return to the military will depend on the needs  of  the
service.  We note that DPSOA has administratively corrected his RE Code  to
reflect "2C."  In the absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought   in   this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues  involved.  Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material 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  BC-2007-03076  in  Executive
Session on 22 January 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member



The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
03076 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 September 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPSOA Letter, dated 26 October 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 30 November 2007.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant dated 3 December 2007.




            MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
            Panel Chair