RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04645 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

While it is not readily apparent, it appears as though the 
applicant is requesting that his entry-level separation with 
uncharacterized service be upgraded to an honorable discharge, 
and his Reentry (RE) code of 2C (Entry level separation without 
characterization of service) be changed so he may reenlist. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was unfairly discharged from the Air Force for not attaining 
a passing score on his Block III test. He was not afforded all 
available opportunities to succeed. In the aftermath of his 
first test failure where he scored 83 percent, he was only given 
1.5 additional hours of instruction before attempting to retest. 
Air Force instructions indicate airmen should be given an 
opportunity to overcome their deficiencies before discharge 
action begins and the Second Air Force Commander’s stated goal 
(Air Force Times, 23 Mar 10) is that every effort be made by the 
training squadrons to assist in ensuring that every trainee 
succeeds. According to the General, special individualized 
assistance, wash back, and retesting are available to ensure the 
best trained airmen, combat ready airman. However, the 
applicant was never afforded the opportunity to be washed back 
and was only provided 1.5 hours of individualized instruction 
before being recommended for discharge. After the decision was 
made to discharge him, he found out the squadron changed its 
policy with respect to first time test failures to automatically 
wash them back to repeat the block of study. Additionally, he 
should not have been given an entry-level separation with 
uncharacterized service because he served more than 180 days on 
active duty. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and copies of excerpts from his military personnel 
records, a pertinent Air Force Times article, and excerpts from 
AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 2 Feb 10 in the grade of airman 
basic (E-1) for a period of four years. 

 

On 20 Jul 10, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to recommend his discharge from the Air Force for entry-
level performance and conduct for his failure to make 
satisfactory progress in a required course of instruction. The 
specific reasons for the action were that he twice failed to 
attain a passing score on the Block III, Unit 8, Test A, with 
scores of 83 and 80 percent, when the passing score was 
85 percent. 

 

On 20 Jul 10, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and elected not to submit a statement in his behalf. 

 

On 10 Aug 10, the applicant was furnished an entry-level 
separation with uncharacterized service and was credited with 
six months and nine days of total active service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The applicant was eliminated from the 
Basic Airborne Mission System Specialist Course for twice 
failing the Block III, Unit 8, Test A with scores of 83 and 
80 percent, respectively. His discharge record reflects he was 
counseled and afforded an opportunity to overcome his academic 
deficiencies. As for his assertion he should have been 
honorably discharged instead of being furnished an entry-level 
separation; airmen are given entry-level separation with 
uncharacterized service when separation is initiated within the 
first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of 
Defense (DoD) determined it would be unfair, to both the 
department and the member, to characterize a member’s limited 
service when such service is less than 180 days. The applicant 
was notified of separation on 20 Jul 10, which was 168 days from 
his date of entry, well within the 180 days required for an 
entry-level separation. Based on the documentation on file, the 
discharge, to include the service characterization, was 


appropriately administered and within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. 

 

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

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, 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 
USAF, based on his entry-level separation with uncharacterized 
service. The applicant has provided no evidence to suggest the 
RE code issued in conjunction with his entry-level separation is 
wrong. He believes he was unfairly discharged; however, his 
discharge was found to be legally sufficient and according to 
the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation, his discharge, to include his 
uncharacterized service and entry-level separation, was 
appropriate and in compliance with the applicable governing 
instructions. 

 

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 11 May 11 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 timely filed. 

 

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 during the discharge process. Based on 
the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s 
entry-level separation for failure to satisfactorily progress in 
a required course of instruction was consistent with the 
substantive requirements of the governing instructions and 
within the commander’s discretionary authority. He has provided 
no evidence which would lead us to believe his entry-level 
separation with uncharacterized service was improper or contrary 
to the provisions of the governing directive, or the RE code 
issued in conjunction with his entry-level separation was 
erroneous or inappropriately assigned. Therefore, absent 


evidence the applicant was not afforded rights to which he 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-2010-04645 in Executive Session on 7 Sep 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 21 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 Apr 11. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair