RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02404
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment code  of  2C,  “involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable   discharge;   or   entry   level   separation    without
characterization of service,” be changed to 3A, “first-term  airman
who separated before completing 36 months (60 months for a six year
enlistee) on current enlistment and who has no known  disqualifying
factors or ineligibility conditions except grade, skill level,  and
insufficient total active federal military service (TAFMS).”

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation was due to Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  test
failure, not for disciplinary reasons, i.e., Article 15.

In support of  his  appeal,  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  his
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active  Duty,
issued on 18 Jun 04.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  29  Dec  03  for  a
period six years.

On 1 Mar 04, applicant failed to obey a lawful order by  wrongfully
refusing to go to school.  For this offense, he received  a  Letter
of Reprimand.

On 4 Mar 04, applicant failed Objective 105a with a score  of  60%.
For this offense, he received a Letter of Counseling.

On 5 Mar 04, applicant received a Letter of Reprimand  for  failing
to follow the orders of a noncommissioned  officer  (NCO),  by  not
completing his homework.

On  10  Jun  04,   the   squadron   section   commander   initiated
administrative discharge action against the  applicant  for  entry-
level performance and conduct.  The reasons for the proposed action
were that applicant failed  to  make  satisfactory  progress  in  a
required technical training program.  He was  eliminated  from  the
Fuels Apprentice training  course  for  unsatisfactory  performance
after failing Block 1, Unit II test three times, with scores of


52%, 52%, and 56% respectively, and objective 105a V1 with a  score
of 60%.  Minimum passing score was 72%.   Prior  to  disenrollment,
applicant was counseled concerning  his  performance  and  received
individualized assistance, and  was  washed  back  four  times  for
additional instruction.  Efforts to improve  his  performance  were
unsuccessful.

On that same date, after consulting with counsel, applicant  waived
his right to counsel and to submit statements in  his  own  behalf.
On 17 Jun 04, the deputy staff judge  advocate  reviewed  the  case
file and found  it  legally  sufficient.   He  concurred  with  the
squadron section commander’s recommendation that the  applicant  be
discharged with an entry level separation in accordance with AFI 36-
3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, para 5.22  (entry  level
performance and conduct).  The  discharge  authority  directed  the
applicant be discharged with an entry level separation.

On 18 Jun 04, applicant  received  an  uncharacterized  entry-level
separation, by reason of “Entry Level Performance and Conduct,” and
was issued an RE code of 2C.  He was credited  with  5  months  and
20 days of active duty service during this period.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOA reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial,
stating, in part, they found no evidence of error or injustice; nor
did the applicant submit any evidence to support his claim.

HQ  AFPC/DPSOA’s  complete  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommended denial of the applicant’s request.   They
found the discharge consistent with the procedural and  substantive
requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation.   Additionally,   the
discharge was within the discretion  of  the  discharge  authority.
The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing  and  he
provided no other facts warranting a change to his RE code.

They   also   noted   that    airmen    are    given    entry-level
separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation
is initiated in the first 180 days of  continuous  active  service.
The Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a member served  less
than 180 days continuous service, it would be unfair to the  member
and the service to characterize their limited service.

HQ AFPC/DPSOS’complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 21 Sep 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office(Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   Applicant’s
contentions are duly noted; however, we are not persuaded  that  he
has been the victim of an error or injustice.  At the time  members
are separated from the Air Force, they are  furnished  an  RE  code
predicated upon the quality of their service and the  circumstances
of their separation.  Applicant’s RE code of 2C accurately reflects
that  he  was  involuntarily  separated  with  an   uncharacterized
character of service and given the  circumstances  surrounding  his
separation, we believe the RE code issued was  in  accordance  with
the governing instruction.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that  the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and that  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-2007-02404 in Executive Session on 4 December  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
      Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jul 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Sep 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 6 Sep 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Sep 07.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair