RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01590
		INDEX CODE:	 100.06
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation be changed or removed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believes that the narrative reason “unsatisfactory performance” holds her solely responsible for training she did not receive prior to testing for her upgrade training.  The end of course test she failed was different from what she was taught during on the job training. 

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 October 2000, for a term of 4 years.

On 24 April 2002, she was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (Unsatisfactory Performance) and receive an honorable discharge.  The reason for this action was that she failed her career development course (CDC) end-of-course test on 11 February 2002, and again on 18 March 2002.  She was advised of her rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  She consulted with counsel and submitted statements for consideration.  In a legal review of the case file, the base legal office found the case legally sufficient to support discharge.   The discharge authority approved the separation and ordered an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  She was separated from the Air Force on 23 May 2002, with an honorable service characterization and received a RE code of 2C ”Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.”  She served one year, seven months and three days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  Based upon the documentation in master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge process.  She provided no facts warranting a change to the narrative reason for separation.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 Jun 04, for review and comment within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant changing the applicant’s discharge.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office 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 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 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 Docket Number BC-2004-01590 in Executive Session on 10 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 12 May 04.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Jun 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 04.

	Panel Chair