RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03566
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation (Unsatisfactory Performance) 
and the separation code of JHJ be removed or changed. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was informed numerous times by the legal office that he would 
be able to reenlist into another branch with no wait time once 
he was discharged.

He was told by a recruiter that based on his separation code 
there was a 24 months wait time.

He was given false information and had he been given the correct 
information he would have challenged it prior to his separation.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, issued in conjunction with his 14 Jun 13 separation. 

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 Aug 12, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for 
a period of six years.  

On 30 May 13, the squadron commander notified the applicant of 
administrative discharge action for unsatisfactory performance, 
failure to perform assigned duties properly.  The basis of the 
discharge was the applicant’s failure to make satisfactory 
progress in a required training program.  The applicant had four 
course failures.  He failed his Block III test with a 
66 percent, his Block VIII test with 60 percent, his Block 
IX progress check with an UNSAT, and his Block X written test 
with a 47 percent.  He struggled with basic facts and terms 
during knowledge testing and struggled with application of the 
course material during progress checks.  During his ineffective 
status, he received 208 hours of course review and was washed 
back twice.  He received formal counseling for minor misconduct.  
After a discussion on the current reclassification guidelines, 
the applicant was disenrolled from the course.  Then, the 
applicant requested separation.  

The applicant waived his right to consult with counsel and 
submit statements in his own behalf.  The staff judge advocate 
found the case file legally sufficient and recommended an 
honorable discharge, without Probation and Rehabilitation (P&R).  
On 7 Jun 13, the discharge authority approved the discharge, 
without P&R.

On 14 Jun 13, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason 
of “Unsatisfactory Performance,” and was issued an RE code of 
2C which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable 
discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of 
service."  He was credited with 10 months and 8 days of active 
duty service.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA notes that although the applicant did not request a 
change of his RE code, the correct RE code is 3A which denotes--
"First-term Airman [involuntarily separated] (entry-level) for 
inability to satisfactorily progress in a required training 
program without characterization of service; or a first-term 
Airman [involuntarily separated] for failure to progress in 
military training required to be qualified for service with the 
Air Force or for performance of primary duties." This is also a 
more favorable code for reentry in the military than the 2C.  
AFPC/DPSOY will provide the applicant a corrected copy of his 
DD Form 214 with an RE code of 3A, unless otherwise directed by 
the Board.

The applicant received an erroneous RE code of 2C.  The correct 
RE code is 3A, based on his inability to satisfactorily progress 
in a required training program without characterization of 
service.

The applicant wants to enter another branch of service as soon 
as possible.  Each component of the military determines and 
changes their own enlistment guidance as they deem appropriate. 
No one other than a recruiter from the branch the applicant is 
trying to join can advise him of their current enlistment 
eligibility rules.

The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant 
received counseling on several occasions and was afforded ample 
opportunity to overcome his deficiencies.  They found no 
evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the 
discharge action, nor did the applicant submit any such 
evidence.  Based on the documentation on file in the master 
personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason 
for separation, separation code, and characterization of service 
were consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements 
of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of 
discharge authority. 

AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 
5.26, states that airmen may be discharged if their 
unsatisfactory duty performance or conduct shows they are not 
qualified for service with the Air Force.  Before recommending 
discharge the applicant's commander reviewed his academic 
performance record and noted he was afforded every opportunity 
to progress in his course of instructions.  He received formal 
counseling for minor misconduct.  The applicant was disenrolled 
from the course and after a discussion about current 
reclassification guidelines, he requested separation.  The 
discharge record reveals the applicant was counseled and 
afforded an opportunity to improve his performance, but was met 
with negative results.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates his original contentions and provides a 
summary of the events which led to his administrative 
separation.  He notes that he made every attempt to keep up with 
his peers.  He was devastated about his discharge from the Air 
Force and it was his vision and goal to follow in his parents 
footsteps who were both in the military.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that relief 
beyond that already granted administratively is not warranted.  
In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting further relief 
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-2013-03566 in Executive Session on 26 Jun 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03566 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 13 w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 Nov 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 Dec 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Dec 13.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Dec 13, w/atchs