RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01881
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation, separation code, and Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his separation from the Air Force he was willing to accept anything honorable that would separate him from the military.  His record reflects two instances where he broke the rules (basic training and technical training).

He did not realize at that time the importance of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and the unjust mark against him.  He performed his duties to the best of his abilities and if he fell short he paid the price.  He does not feel that he should continue paying for another person’s personal opinion of him.  He is convinced that this description of his performance marks him as a slacker and this is the farthest thing from the truth.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 January 1979 in the grade of airman basic for a period of 4 years.

On 12 November 1980, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to initiate discharge action against him for being a marginal performer and nonproductive (specific reasons at Exhibit B).

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that the applicant’s supervisors, the unit’s first sergeant, and himself [the commander] had spent many long hours toward the counseling and hoped for rehabilitation of the applicant.  His frequent lack of initiative toward the military indicates the rehabilitative efforts had not been successful.  The applicant cannot adjust to the everyday stress of military life and is incapable of meeting Air Force standards.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

On 12 November 1980, after consulting with counsel, applicant requested retention in the Air Force and indicated that he would submit a written presentation in support of his request for retention.

On 20 November 1980, the commander indicated that the applicant did not submit statements in support of his request for retention.

A resume of the applicant's performance reports follows:

		PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			 5 Mar 80			8
			19 Nov 80			4

Applicant was honorably discharged on 8 December 1980, in the grade of airman first class, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Marginal Performer).  He completed 1 year, 10 months and 28 days of total active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  They indicated that the commander notified the member on 12 November 1980 that he was being discharged for being a marginal or nonproductive member.  The member was counseled for being late for duty on 22 and 27 August 1979; 22, 23 and 25 October 1979; 6 February 1980; 20 and 28 May 1980; 24 June 1980; and 24 October 1980.  He was counseled for failure to repair on 5 September 1979.  He was counseled for leaving his place of duty 13 May 1980.  He was counseled for sleeping in an aircraft while on duty on 14 May 1980.  He received a letter of reprimand (LOR) for being late for duty on 28 and 30 May 1980.  He received a record of counseling for dishonored checks written on 6 and 21 May 1980.  He received an LOR for failure to go to a scheduled appointment on 1 August 1980.  He was counseled for committing a parking violation on 13 October 1980.

Based on the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority. 

The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  He provided no other facts warranting a change in his separation code or narrative reason for separation.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE states that they find no documentation to support the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2P, “Absent without leave (AWOL); deserter or dropped from rolls (DFR).”  However, based on documentation and member’s narrative reason for separation “marginal performer” they recommend the applicant’s code be changed to 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” which they feel accurately reflects the applicant’s separation.  (Examiner’s Note: The advisory’s definition of the RE code “2P” (AWOL); deserter or dropped from rolls (DFR) is incorrect.  At the time of discharge in 1980, RE code “2P” is defined as “marginal performer.”  Therefore, the applicant’s RE code is correct.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 12 October 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s narrative reason for separation, separation code, and RE code.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force, AFPC/DPPRS, and adopts their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The narrative reason for separation and separation code issued at the time of separation was in accordance with the applicable regulations.  The evaluation from AFPC/DPPAE defines the applicant’s RE code of “2P” as “Absent without leave (AWOL); deserter or dropped from rolls (DFR).”  The Board finds that this evaluation is incorrect.  At the time of the applicant’s discharge in 1980, the RE code “2P” is defined as “marginal performer” and was used to identify personnel separated under AFR 39-10.  A review of the applicant’s overall duty performance while on active duty would appear to substantiate the reason why he received the codes he did.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no compelling 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 probable 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 28 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 June 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 September 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 October 2001.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 October 2001.