RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04219 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected as follows so she may qualify for enlistment 
into the US Naval Reserve: 

 

 a. Her uncharacterized service be upgraded to honorable. 

 

 b. Her separation program designator (SPD) code, 
separation authority, and narrative reason for separation be 
changed to reflect she was discharged for a hardship condition 
which no longer exists. 

 

 c. Her Reentry (RE) code of 2C (Entry-level separation 
without character of service) be changed to 4A (Separated for 
hardship or dependency reasons). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The conditions which precipitated her discharge from the Air 
Force no longer exist and the requested changes would more 
accurately characterize her military service and discharge. She 
suffered a hardship in that her husband at the time was not 
willing to cooperate or support her being in the military. The 
resultant stress affected her performance during technical 
training and resulted in her involuntary separation. She has 
since divorced her husband and respectfully requests a second 
chance to complete what she had once started. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and copies of her DD Form 214, excerpts from her 
military personnel records, college transcripts, divorce decree, 
and character references. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate she enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 13 Jan 04 in the grade of airman 
basic (E-1) for a period of six years. 

 

On 13 May 04, the applicant’s commander notified her of her 
intent to recommend her entry-level separation for entry-level 
performance and conduct for her failure to make satisfactory 
progress in a required training program. The reason for the 
action was the applicant’s elimination from the Communications-
Computer Systems Operations Apprentice Course due to academic 
deficiencies; specifically, for twice failing the Block 2 test 
with scores of 58 percent and 40 percent, respectively. 

 

On 13 May 04, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, 
waived her right to consult with legal counsel, and elected to 
not submit statements in her behalf. 

 

On 28 May 04, the case was found to be legally sufficient and 
the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation 
on 1 Jun 04. On 8 Jun 04, the applicant was furnished an entry-
level separation with uncharacterized service for entry-level 
performance and conduct and was credited with 4 months and 
26 days of total active service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The applicant’s service characterization 
is correct as reflected on her DD Form 214. Airmen are given 
entry-level separation with uncharacterized service when 
separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous 
active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined it 
would be unfair, to the Department or the member, to 
characterize a member’s limited service when such service is 
less than 180 days. Therefore, the applicant’s uncharacterized 
service, which resulted in the RE code of 2C, is correct and in 
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions. Although the 
applicant states the situation which precipitated her discharge 
no longer exists, it does not change the basis for which she was 
discharged. There is no evidence of any error or injustice in 
the processing of the discharge action. Based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge; to include the character of service, separation 
authority, SPD code, RE code, and narrative reason for 
separation; was consistent with the procedural and substantive 


requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change her RE code, indicating there is no evidence of an error 
or injustice. The applicant’s RE code of 2C is required in 
accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the US Air Force, 
based on her entry-level separation with uncharacterized 
service. Although the applicant wants an RE code of 
4A (Separated for hardship or dependency reasons), she was not 
separated for a hardship and the 4A RE code does not apply. 
Additionally, RE codes are prioritized with 2-series RE codes 
having priority over 4, 3, or 1-series codes (in that order). 
As such, even if the applicant was furnished an entry-level 
separation for a hardship condition, she would have still been 
issued an RE code of 2C to denote that she was furnished an 
entry-level separation. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 May 11 for review and response 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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or 
injustice that occurred in the discharge process. Based on the 
evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s entry-level 
separation for her failure to make satisfactory progress in a 
required training program was consistent with the substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and within the 
commander’s discretionary authority. She has provided no 
evidence which would lead us to believe her entry-level 
separation with uncharacterized service was improper or contrary 
to the provisions of the governing directive, or the RE and SPD 


codes issued in conjunction with her entry-level separation, 
were erroneous or inappropriately assigned. Therefore, absent 
evidence the applicant was not afforded rights to which she was 
entitled, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or 
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the requested relief. 

 

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 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-2010-04219 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 11, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 23 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 15 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair