RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02057
INDEX CODE:  112.10
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 2C (involuntary separation with honorable discharge) and his narrative reason for separation be changed to enable him to reenter the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Because the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) upgraded his discharge from “Under Honorable Conditions (General)” to “Honorable,” his reentry code and narrative reason for separation should be changed to allow him to re-enter active military service.  

In support of his application, the applicant provides a statement from his Veteran’s Service Office with attachments in his behalf. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 September 1992, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  The applicant was trained in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 4H0X1, Cardiopulmonary Laboratory Apprentice.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3), effective and with a date of rank of 25 January 1994.  He received 3 Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) for the periods closing 24 May 1994, 24 May 1995 and 20 November 1995, in which the overall evaluations were 2, 2, and 1, respectively.  The latter two reports were referred to the applicant for review and comment.  He did not submit comments for review by the indorser.

On 5 September 1995, the applicant’s supervisor signed an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, not recommending the applicant for reenlistment because of below-standard duty performance.  His commander approved the recommendation on 6 September 1995.

The applicant received seven Letters of Counseling (LOC) and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) during the period 24 January 1994 to 31 August 1995 for dereliction of duty in the performance of his duties as a Cardiopulmonary Laboratory Apprentice and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

In the meantime, on 23 January 1995, the applicant had a Commander-Directed Mental Health Evaluation because of continued problems “with learning and retaining the information that he needs to do his job properly.”  The attending psychologist’s report of evaluation indicated the applicant reported a long history of significant learning problems and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder.  The psychologist indicated that the applicant was medically fit for military duty but that his suitability for continued military service was questionable.  The psychologist recommended that the applicant continue follow-up counseling, be provided a further trial of duty and that if he continued to have problems with duty performance, administrative separation should be undertaken. 

On 11 October 1995, he received an AF Form 765, Medical Treatment Facility Incident Statement, for dereliction of duty.  The record indicates he was unable to gain and maintain basic knowledge and performance skills for sustained periods.

On 11 January 1996, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend him for discharge based on continued unsatisfactory performance.  The applicant acknowledged receipt, consulted counsel and chose to waive his right to submit matters on his own behalf.  On 11 January 1996, the Commander signed a recommendation to the discharge authority for the applicant’s discharge based on unsatisfactory duty performance.  In a legal review dated 17 January 1996, the discharge case file was found to be legally sufficient by the staff judge advocate.  The discharge authority approved the recommended separation under the provisions of AFPD 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section E, Paragraph 5.26.1, on 25 January 1996.  

The applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge effective 29 January 1996 with a separation code JHJ (unsatisfactory performance) and a reentry code of 2B (involuntarily separated with an general or under other than honorable conditions discharge).  He had served 3 years, 4 months and 5 days on active duty.

The applicant submitted a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, on 29 February 2000.  An AFDRB hearing was held on 2 March 2002 to consider his case.  The AFDRB unanimously decided to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to honorable and change his reentry code to 2C.  The AFDRB determined that the reason for the applicant’s separation should not be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS reviewed the applicant’s case file and concurs that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The AFDRB reviewed his case in March 2001 and upgraded his discharge to honorable.  The board also concluded that the reason for discharge (unsatisfactory performance) should not be changed.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  DPPRS recommends the applicant’s records remain the same and his request be denied.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the applicant’s case and concludes that the RE code of 2C is correct.  The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 January 2003, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  The AFDRB upgraded the applicant’s discharge to honorable and changed his reentry code to 2C.  The applicant believes that, as a result f the AFDRB’s action, his records should be further corrected in a manner which would allow his reentry into the service.  We disagree.  The mere fact that his discharge was upgraded does not mandate approval of the requested relief.  We note that the AFDRB specifically declined to change the reason for the applicant’s separation and we concur with their decision on this issue.  The record clearly shows that the applicant experienced problems maintaining acceptable duty performance standards.  Following a mental health evaluation, a military psychologist determined that there was a medical component to his inability to retain the knowledge necessary to properly perform his duties.  In our estimation, based on the evidence of record, the applicant’s separation was in the best interests of the Air Force and the individual.  Other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant indicating the information contained in his medical records and discharge case file is erroneous, he was not afforded all rights to which he was entitled, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  Furthermore, the applicant has provided no evidence showing that he would now be able to effectively perform his duties in the highly structured military environment.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 19 February 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number 02‑02057 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 02 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Oct 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 27 Dec 02
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 2003.

                                  Vice Chair