AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01753
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                  HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 DECEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  be  changed  from  “2C”  which
denotes "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry
level separation without characterization of service" to  an  RE  code
that will allow her to enlist in the United States Air  Force  (USAF),
USAF Reserve or into another branch of military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received her current RE code because  of  two  career  development
course (CDC) failures.  Her failures were due to  lack  of  on-the-job
training (OJT) that should have been provided and  documented  by  her
trainers.  She did not receive training by someone in her career field
until after her second CDC failure.  She  believes  test  anxiety  and
going through a divorce at the time  were  contributing  factors.   In
addition, there were others with two-time failures who  submitted  CDC
waiver requests that were approved.

In support of her request, the applicant submits  a  personal  letter,
character reference letters and documents extracted from her  training
record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27  September  2000
for a period of four years.

On 23 June 2003, she  was  notified  by  her  commander  that  he  was
recommending her for discharge  for  unsatisfactory  duty  performance
under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Air Force  Military  Training  and
AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, chapter  5,  section
D, paragraph 5.26.3, Failure to progress in (OJT).

The specific reasons for this action were  her  failure  to  obtain  a
passing score on her CDC examinations.  The applicant had two sets  of
CDCs to pass with a minimum score of 65%.  On her first  attempt  with
the first set she scored 47%, but passed with 76% on retest, with  the
second set she scored 50% and on retest she scored 46%.  Having failed
twice on the same test, her enrollment was terminated.

On 27 March 2003, her squadron submitted a request to  waive  her  CDC
course to the wing commander.  The commander had the option  to  waive
the CDC, retrain, or separate her.  On 23 May 2003, the wing commander
disapproved the CDC waiver request.

On 22 June 2003, the case was reviewed by the base legal services  and
found  to  be  legally  sufficient  to  support  the  discharge.   The
applicant acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  and  that  legal
counsel had been made available to her.

On 23 June 2003 the discharge  authority  directed  the  applicant  be
discharged with an honorable discharge.   On  2  July  2003,  she  was
honorably discharged in the grade of airman first class.

She served two years, nine months and six days on active duty.

The applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB)
for a change in the narrative reason and RE code. On 2 June 2005,  the
AFDRB granted partial relief by changing the narrative reason  of  her
discharge to Secretarial Authority;  however,  her  RE  code  was  not
changed.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  DPPAE states CDC's are just one portion
of OJT/upgrade training.  CDC's are individual, open-book; self  paced
training volumes with examination testing at the end of  each  volume.
The applicant did fail the CDC end-of-course on  two  occasions.   She
scored 50% on 30 May 02 and on 16 July 2002, she retested  and  scored
46%.  The RE Code for such a separation was  2C.   DPPAE  states  they
find no evidence of error or injustice; nor did the  applicant  submit
any evidence.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
31 August 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of  an  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  changing  the
applicant’s RE code.  We  took  notice  of  the  applicant’s  complete
submission in judging the merits of the case, however; we  agree  with
the Air Force office  of  primary  responsibility  that  the  RE  code
assigned is correct in accordance with established policy.   Therefore
we adopt its rationale as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   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 CONCLUDES 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  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
01753 in Executive Session on 1 November 2007, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
            Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
            Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member



The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-
01753 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 May 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPPAE Letter, dated 13 August 2007 w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 August 2007.





                                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                             Panel Chair