RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00351 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
    
 
______________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  Her  separation  code  of  JHJ,  which  denotes,  “Unsatisfactory 
Performance,” be changed. 
 
2.  Her  Reenlistment  Eligibility  (RE)  code  2C,  which  denotes 
"Involuntarily  separated  with  an  honorable  discharge;  or  entry 
level  separation  without  characterization  of  service,"  be 
changed to allow reentry in the military. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The RE and separation codes she received are an injustice. 
 
She lasted seven months in technical school and after her fourth 
failure  was  notified  that  she  would  be  discharged  from  the  Air 
Force. 
 
She is currently maintaining an “A” average in college. 
 
She  re-took  the  Armed  Services  Vocational  Aptitude  Battery 
(ASVAB) and scored higher than her previous scores. 
 
Other services will not see her full potential because of the RE 
and separation codes. 
 
In  support  of  her  request  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement, copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge  from  Active  Duty;  AETC  Form  125A,  Record  of 
Administrative  Training  Action;  AF  IMT  100,  Request  and 
Authorization 
Waiver 
Request/Authorization,  college  transcripts  and  a  Notification 
Memorandum. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

for 

Separation; 

AFRS 

Form 

1415, 

 

 

with 

the 

failed; 

Block 

discharge 

under 

the 

provisions 

of 

AFI 

curriculum.  She 

 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 21 Sep 2010, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 
 
On  27  May  2011,  according  to  AETC  Form  125A,  her  commander 
concurred  with  the  recommendation  to  eliminate  the  applicant 
form  the  Geospatial  Intelligence  Analyst  Course  due  to  her 
struggles 
I 
"Fundamentals of Geospatial Intelligence Analyst Course” scoring 
68 percent; Block XI "Air Order of Battle" twice with scores of 
68  percent  and  73  percent,  and  Block  XIII  "Integrated  Air 
Defenses Order of Battle."  She “washed back” twice, once after 
the Block I failure and once after the second Block XI failure.  
She did not have any derogatory information in her file. 
 
On  17  Jun  2011,  her  commander  notified  her  he  was  recommending 
her 
36-3208, 
Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen,  for  Unsatisfactory 
Performance,  specifically  failure  to  progress  in  military 
training required to be qualified for service with the Air Force 
or for performance of primary duties. 
 
On  17  Jun  2011,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the 
discharge notification and provided a response. 
 
On  30  Jun  2011,  the  discharge  authority  directed  the  applicant 
be discharged for “Unsatisfactory Performance” with an honorable 
character of service. 
 
On 7 Jul 2011, she received an honorable discharge from the Air 
Force.  The narrative reason for separation was “Termination of 
Initial Active Duty Training.”  She served 9 months and 17 days 
of total active service. 
 
The following is a résumé of the applicant’s ASVAB scores: 
 Subject Area   
 
Mechanical  
 
 
Administrative  
 
 
General    
 
Electronics 
 
 
The  minimum  ASVAB  “General”  score  required  to  qualify  as  a 
Geospatial Intelligence Analyst, AFSC 1N1X1, is 66. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

Second ASVAB 
 
 
 
 

First ASVAB 
38   
 
 
78   
72   
 
 
60   

47 
78 
72 
70 

 
 
 
 
 

 

2 

 
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ  AFPC/DPSOA  recommends  denial  of  changing  the  applicant’s  RE 
code.    DPSOA  states  her  RE  code  of  2C  is  required  per  AFI  36-
2606,  Reenlistments  in  the  USAF,  based  on  her  involuntary 
discharge with an honorable character of service. 
 
The applicant does not provide proof of an error or injustice in 
reference to her RE code, but is asking for leniency.  Personnel 
who  are  involuntarily  separated  from  the  Air  Force  with  an 
honorable character of service receive a RE code of 2C. 
 
The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
HQ  AFPC/DPSOS  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  to 
change  her  separation  code.    DPSOS  states  the  applicant’s 
discharge  was  based  on  her  unsatisfactory  progress  in  training 
based  upon  her  academic  elimination  from  technical  training 
school.  She was given ample opportunity to improve her academic 
performance and was counseled on several occasions regarding her 
academic  deficiencies.    She  stated  she  is  in  school  making  A's 
in all her classes and has retaken the ASVAB and scored better 
than the previous time.  The four test failures were evidence of 
her  lack  of  motivation.    The  discharge  record  reveals  she  was 
counseled  and  afforded  an  opportunity  to  improve  her 
performance, but was met with negative results. 
 
The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
While  it  is  true  she  was  counseled  multiple  times  for  her 
failures,  she  would  like  to  make  it  clear  that  her  academic 
deficiencies  are  not  because  of  her  lack  of  motivation.    In 
fact, many people would say that she was so motivated that she 
studied all day and night to improve her grades. 
 
The  reason  she  failed  these  tests  were  because  of  her  academic 
struggles.  She failed the first test because she was not able 
to retain a large amount of information in the short amount of 
time she was given to study.  Three months later she failed the 
second  test,  which  was  the  same  time  she  began  her  on-the-job 
training.  She failed by one question because she did not read 
the  question  correctly.    It  was  a  mistake  on  her  part,  but  it 
does  not  indicate  a  lack  of  motivation.    After  two  weeks  of 
studying, she again re-tested and passed the test. 
 
The  tests  progressively  became  more  difficult  and  she  studied 
constantly and managed to pass the next test.  Her failure does 
not  show  a  lack  of  motivation  on  her  part,  it  merely  shows  a 
lack of aptitude for that particular job. 

 

3 

 
She  wants  to  change  her  reenlistment  and  separation  codes 
because  they  are  preventing  her  from  joining  any  branch  of  the 
military.    She  failed  this  course,  but  it  does  not  mean  she 
would fail out of every course of study in the military. 
 
Her complete submission is at Exhibit F. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  to  include  her  response  to  the  Air  Force  evaluations.  
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 the applicant has not 
been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.    We  note  the 
applicant’s assertion that she did not lack motivation; however, 
there is no error in her record and we do not find she has been 
treated  any  differently  than  others  similarly  situated.  
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. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

4 

 Panel Chair 
 Member 
 Member 

 
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2012-00351  in  Executive  Session  on  25  Jul  2012,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-00351: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 5 Mar 2012. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Apr 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Apr 2012. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, not dated. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

                                   
Panel Chair 

 

5