RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03513

  					COUNSEL:  NONE

					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him 
to enlist in the Air National Guard.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He joined the Air Force and wanted to become a pilot, which his 
recruiter said was possible.  However, his recruiter was not 
truthful throughout the recruiting process.  In addition, the 
instructors in Basic Military Training (BMT) had it out for him 
from the beginning.  

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
his untimely application because he has a family now and is 
afraid the current characterization of service looks 
dishonorable when applying for jobs.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 May 98, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 8 Oct 98, his section chief annotated his block II test 
failure indicating he would be placed into an academic 
enrichment program.

On 30 Oct 98, his section chief annotated his block III failure 
on AETC Form 173, Student Record of Academic/Nonacademic 
Counseling and Comments, indicating this was his second 
consecutive block material he failed.  

On 5 Nov 98, his squadron commander notified him he was 
recommending he be discharged with an entry level separation for 
performance or conduct under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, 
Military Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.22. 
Specifically, he failed Block II and Block III with scores of 
42% and 64% respectively resulting in his disenrollment from 
technical training.  He consulted counsel and waived his right 
to submit statements.       

On 16 Nov 98, his training group commander recommended he be 
discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.22, 
with an entry level separation.  

On 18 Nov 98, the applicant received an entry level separation 
with uncharacterized character of service and narrative reason 
for separation as entry level performance and conduct.  He was 
credited with 6 months and 6 days of active service.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  Based on the documentation on file in 
the master personnel records, the discharge to include the 
Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for 
separation and character of service was appropriately 
administered and within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  

The record shows that the applicant was counseled several times 
concerning his course work and study habit.  There were 
instances where he failed to complete mandatory homework 
assignments and failed two progress check objectives on two 
separate occasions.  The applicant indicated to his instructor 
that he was not motivated to study in the evening as he should.  
Since the applicant had already been reclassified once before 
and gave his instructor the impression that he was not 
interested in putting forth his best effort to succeed in the 
military, the commander concluded that discharge was in order.  
Therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are 
correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.  

The applicant’s service characterization is also correct as 
indicated on his DD Form 214.  Airmen are given Entry-level 
separation/Uncharacterized service characterization 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 on his DD Form 214 is correct and in accordance with DoD 
and Air Force instructions.  

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant does not try to prove 
an error or injustice occurred but explains his circumstances 
and that he voluntarily separated.  However, the applicant’s 
notification memorandum dated 5 Nov 98, clearly states his 
commander recommended (initiated) separation action for entry 
level performance or conduct based on the applicant’s failure to 
make satisfactory progress in a required training program.  The 
RE code 2C is correct based on his entry level separation with 
uncharacterized character of service.   

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded by stating since separating from the Air 
Force, he received his basic firefighter certification and 
volunteered at a local fire department.  He also volunteers at a 
horse therapy ranch for kids with mental and physical 
disabilities.  In addition, he obtained his private pilot’s 
license.  For most of his adult life, he has been in the 
security business for several companies.  He took the civil 
service exam in hopes of being accepted into the local police 
academy for training.  Through the trials of life, he has become 
a strong Christian, a physically strong individual and a 
mentally tough person.  

He was arrested in 2010 for two counts of terroristic threats 
however; all charges were dropped so he is looking into having 
it expunged or closed.  He has had a couple of traffic tickets 
and accidents as well.  He requested a Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) report and will forward it upon receipt.


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 regarding the 
applicant’s request for change to his reenlistment eligibility.  
We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to 
include his rebuttal of the Air Force advisory, in judging the 
merits of the case; however, the Board found no errors in the 
discharge and separation process of the applicant.  The Board 
agrees with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and 
adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  


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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-03513 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 24 Sep 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 3 Nov 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.