RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00485 

 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 100.03 

 

  COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her Reentry (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily separated with an 
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without 
characterization of service) be changed to RE code 1C and that 
she be allowed to return to active duty. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her discharge from the Air Force was unwarranted. The reason 
for separation was academic in nature and two minor infractions 
that she disputed. She was never offered retraining and while 
she tried diligently to pass the training requirements, she 
struggled, and the offered assistance was not enough. 

 

Her discharge memorandum stated that she was not involved in any 
conduct to warrant demotion, yet she was discharged because of 
academic struggles. She does not believe the evidence warrants 
a RE code of 2C or that she was given proper guidance or 
counsel. She firmly believes that if she was given the chance 
to succeed in a training field that fit her, she could have been 
an asset to the nation and the Air Force. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of her 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, issued in conjunction with her 23 Dec 09 discharge and 
other documents from her military personnel record (MPR). 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 7 Jul 09. 

 


On or about 2 Nov 09, the applicant failed to return to class as 
required; for this misconduct she received an LOR on 3 Nov 09. 

 

On or about 28 Nov 09, the applicant violated Phase II uniform 
requirements by leaving the base in civilian clothes. For this 
misconduct she received an LOR on 30 Nov 09. 

 

On 18 Dec 09, the squadron section commander initiated 
administrative discharge action against the applicant for entry-
level performance or conduct. The reasons for the proposed 
action were based on the incidents listed above and that the 
applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in a required 
training program. She was eliminated from the Aerospace Ground 
Equipment Apprentice training course for unsatisfactory 
performance after failing Block 3, Unit 4, Test a, and Block 4, 
Unit 5, Test a (twice), with scores of 60%, 55% and 60% 
respectively. The minimum passing score was 70%. Prior to 
disenrollment, the applicant was counseled concerning her 
performance, was washed back three times and enrolled in 
mandatory study. Efforts to improve her performance met with 
negative results. On that same date, the applicant waived her 
right to counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf. 
The discharge authority directed discharge with an 
uncharacterized entry-level separation. 

 

On 23 Dec 09, the applicant received an uncharacterized entry-
level separation, with a reason for separation of entry level 
performance and conduct, and was issued an RE code of 2C. 
She was credited with 5 months and 17 days of active duty 
service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. The applicant’s service 
characterization is correct as reflected on her DD Form 214. 

 

They also note that airmen are given entry-level 
separation/uncharacterized service characterization when the 
separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous 
active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined that 
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. Therefore, the uncharacterized character 
of service resulting in the RE code of 2C is correct and in 
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. 

 

They found the discharge, to include the character of service, 
was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. The applicant did not submit any evidence 


or identify any errors or injustices in the discharge 
processing, nor did she provide any facts warranting a change to 
her discharge characterization, narrative reason for separation 
and separation code. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of a change to the RE code. The RE 
code of 2C is required based on the entry level separation with 
an uncharacterized character of service per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, chapter 3. The applicant does not 
provide any evidence of an error or injustice in reference to 
her RE code. AFPC/DPSOS validated the applicant discharge 
processing and recommended denial. Additionally, the applicant 
requested an RE code of 1C that does not exist. The only 1# RE 
code that may be authorized for a member separating is 1J 
(eligible to reenlist, but elects separation). All airmen 
selected under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) who 
elect separation are give RE code 1J); however, the applicant 
cannot be awarded an RE code of 1J as she was not selected for 
reenlistment by her commander under the SRP. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 8 Oct 10 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 error or injustice. We took note 
of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case. 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. The 
applicant’s RE code of 2C accurately reflects that she was 
involuntarily separated with an uncharacterized entry-level 
separation; and, given the circumstances surrounding her 
separation, we believe the RE code issued was in accordance with 


the governing instruction. In addition, the applicant contends 
that her discharge was unwarranted and that she should be 
returned to active duty; however, it appears the applicant’s 
academic deficiency was not the only reason for her separation. 
In her discharge notification, her commander noted two incidents 
in which the applicant received LORs for misconduct as well. 
Therefore, based on the evidence of record, it appears the 
discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction and within the commander's 
discretionary authority. Accordingly, we did not find an error 
or injustice in this case. In view of the above and in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-00485 in Executive Session on 10 November 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 4 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 2 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair