RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01180
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. Her reentry code of 2C (Involuntarily separated with an
honorable discharge; or entry level separation without
characterization of service be changed to a waiverable code.

2. Her separation code of JGA (Entry-level performance and
conduct) be corrected.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She would like to enlist in military service. Her separation
code is incorrect and indicates she was pregnant. She had some
problems with her academic class scores; however, she was never
reprimanded. She had a hard time learning the program but tried
her hardest. She is currently enrolled in school and excels in
her classes.

No supporting documentation was submitted.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 Mar 10, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On
10 Jul 10, the applicants Air Education and Training Command
(AETC) flight chief recommended she be discharged for academic
deficiency and performance. Specifically, she failed Block II
with a 65 percent score (passing score 72 percent). She was
allowed to wash back and retest again. She failed again with a
score of 68 percent. Immediately after, without authorization
from her instructor, she illegally retested again scoring 76
percent.
On 2 Aug 10, the applicants commander notified the applicant
that he was recommending she be separated from the Air Force
under the provisions of Air Force Policy Directive 36-32, Military Retirements a
nd Separations and Air Force Instruction
36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, paragraph 5.22.2.3
for failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training
program.

On 4 Aug 10, the Assistant Judge Advocate found the case legally
sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged without an
offer of probation and rehabilitation. The discharge authority
approved the recommended separation. On 9 Aug 10, the applicant
was discharged with an entry level separation and uncharacterized
service. She served five months and one day on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. The applicant states she was
discharged because of pregnancy; however, this is not the case.
Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel
record, the applicant was discharged for not making satisfactory
progress in a required training program. DPSOS states the
discharge to include the service characterization was
appropriately administered and within the discretion of the
discharge authority. In addition, the applicant did not provide
any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the
processing of her discharge.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of her request to change her RE
code. DPSOA states the applicants RE code is not associated
with her behavior or pregnancy, but is driven by her entry level
separation and uncharacterized character of service.

The complete 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 29 Jul 11, for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, this office has received no response (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 error or injustice. We took notice
of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; 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 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 26 Jan 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-01180:

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 1 Jun 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 Jul 11.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 11.



Panel Chair