AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02291
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE
                                  HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reentry (RE) code of “2C” which denotes  "Involuntarily  separated
with  an  honorable  discharge;  or  entry  level  separation  without
characterization of service" be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was dealing with the loss of her  grandfather  while  attending  a
technical training course.  She did not give 110% because  she  wanted
to be with her family.  She is now married to  an  active-duty  spouse
and wants to reenter the military.  She loves what  the  military  has
done for her and wants to serve.  She would like to enlist  or  finish
her degree and work as a military nurse.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of her DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24  November  2003,
for a period of four years.

On 12 May 2004,  she  was  notified  by  her  commander  that  he  was
recommending she be discharged for her failure  to  make  satisfactory
progress in a required training program.   The  specific  reasons  for
this action were that she failed Block 3-1B with  a  68%,  she  failed
Block Test 5-1B with a 56% and she failed Block Test 6-1A with a  67%.
The minimum passing score was 70%.  She failed five  progress  checks.
On 24 April 2004, she was  disenrolled  from  her  technical  training
course.  The flight commander stated she  worked  hard  to  learn  the
material  but  had  difficulty  providing  medical  care  due  to  her
grandfather’s health.   She  was  provided  the  opportunity  to  seek
assistance with life skills and the chaplain; however, she denied life
skills but sought counseling from the chaplain. The  commander  stated
she lacked core values and effort, and recommended separation.
On 12 May 2004,  she  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  of
discharge and was advised of  her  right  to  counsel  and  to  submit
statements in her own behalf. On 13 May 2003, she waived her right  to
submit a statement or consult with counsel.  On 19 May 2004, the  base
legal office reviewed the case and  found  it  legally  sufficient  to
support  the  discharge.   On  27 May  2004,  the  approval  authority
directed   her   discharge    with    an    uncharacterized    service
charaterization.

On 1 June 2004, she was discharged in the grade of airman.  She served
six months and eight days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states the applicant failed three
block tests, five progress checks and was disenrolled  from  technical
training.  She was counseled on her academic failure and received  112
hours of  inside/outside  special  individualized  assistance.   DPSOA
finds no evidence of error or injustices; nor did the applicant submit
evidence of any.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states based on the documentation
on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation and 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 of
continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DOD) determined
if a member served less than 180 days of continuous active service  it
would be unfair to the member and the service  to  characterize  their
limited service.  Therefore, her uncharacterized character of  service
is correct and in accordance with DOD and Air Force instructions.  She
did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that
occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   She  provided   no   facts
warranting a change to her RE code or narrative reason for separation.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
7 November 2008 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response (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 an error or injustice  to  warrant  changing  her  RE
code.  We took  notice  of  the  applicant’s  complete  submission  in
judging the merits of the case, however; we agree  with  the  opinions
and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility
and adopt their 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.   We  feel
compelled to note that if she desires to do so, she has the  available
option of applying for enlistment into another branch  of  service  if
they are willing to  waive  her  RE  code.   Whether  or  not  she  is
successful in her attempts to return to the military  will  depend  on
the needs of the service.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  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  Docket  Number  BC-2008-
02291 in Executive Session on 6 January 2009, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr.  Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Ms.  Audrey F. Davis, Member
                       Mr.  Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-
02291 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 June 2008, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 11 July 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 29 September 2008.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 November 2008.





                                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                        Chair