RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-05130

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Re-entry (RE) code “2C” “Approved Honorable Involuntary 
Separation or Entry Level Separation” be changed to allow him to 
reenlist in the Air Force or Air National Guard.   

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He feels that the RE code is not fair because he was applying 
himself to become a better Airman.  Even though he failed to 
qualify with the M-14 assault rifle, he was improving.  If given 
a second chance, he can prove himself a worthy hand in 
protecting his country.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to copies of documents extracted from the Automated 
Records Management System (ARMS), the applicant enlisted in the 
Regular Air Force on 11 May 2010.  

On 20 August 2010, his commander notified him that he was 
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for entry 
level performance or conduct, under the provisions of Air Force 
Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-32, Military Retirements and 
Separations and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.22.2.3. 
Specifically, the applicant failed to make satisfactory progress  
in a required training program.  

On 20 August 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
commander’s intent to discharge him and waived his rights to 
consult counsel and submit statements on his behalf.  

Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the 
discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed 
that the applicant be discharged with an entry level separation.  
Effective 31 August 2010, the applicant was discharged with an 
entry level separation and “Uncharacterized” service. He was 
credited with serving 3 months and 20 days of active duty.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states that the 
applicant failed to achieve the minimum passing score of 25 on 
the M4 Carbine.  The applicant received Special Individualized 
Assistance (SIA) and was re-tested on the same day, however, he 
failed to qualify for the second time and was washed to the next 
appropriate team.  The applicant was given one last opportunity 
to fire with his new team and yet failed to achieve the minimum 
passing score of 25 after three overall attempts (scoring 14%, 
22%, and 15%).  The applicant's  training records indicated he 
appeared to lack the aptitude and motivation to successfully 
complete Security Forces training or have a successful Air Force 
career.

2.  The applicant's service characterization is correct as 
reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty.  Airmen are given entry-level 
separation/uncharacterized service when separation is initiated 
in the first 180 days continuous active service.  The Department 
of Defense (DoD) determined if a member served less than 180 
days continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member 
and the service to characterize their limited service.  
Therefore, the uncharacterized character of service which 
resulted in the RE code 2C on his DD Form 214 is correct and in 
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

3.  Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
record, the discharge including the service characterization was 
appropriately administered and within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence 
that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of his 
discharge warranting a change to his type of discharge or 
character of service.  

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states the applicants RE 
Code 2C is required per AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments in the United 
States Air Force, chapter 3, based on his involuntary discharge 
with an honorable character of service.  The applicant has not 
provided any evidence that supports a correction to his RE code.  

The complete 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 23 March 2012 for review and comment within 30 
days.  To date, a response has not been received.  

________________________________________________________________

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 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 discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority.  
Therefore, 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.  Therefore, 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 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 16 April 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
      , Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2011-05130:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 w/atchs dated 20 December 2011.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 21 February 2012.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 March 2012
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 March 2012 




                                   
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762




Dear:

	Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 
10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-05130. 

	After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined 
that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.  
Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

	You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the 
Board.  In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not 
possible.

	BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR




				                                   
				                                   Chief Examiner
				                                   Air Force Board for Correction
				                                   of Military Records

Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings



4