RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00906
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.00; 108.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect that he was discharged for disability rather than “unsatisfactory performance,” so that he can qualify for benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered an injury in an automobile accident while still on active duty and was told at the time of his discharge that he could file for disability.  However, he was not advised that he could have filed his claim when the accident occurred.  He is now receiving 10 percent disability through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 28 Mar 01 on a six-year enlistment in the grade of airman first class (E-3).  On 2 Jun 03, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended to the Base Education and Training Manager that the applicant be administratively discharged for a second unsatisfactory course exam result in his career development course.  On 22 Jul 03, the Base Education and Training Manager concurred with the commander’s recommendation.  On 5 Aug 03, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force with service characterized as honorable for failure to progress in on-the-job training (OJT).  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification on 11 Aug 03, consulted counsel, and waived his right to submit statements.  On 13 Aug 03, the staff judge advocate found the discharge action against the applicant legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  On 20 Aug 03, the wing commander directed that the applicant be discharged with service characterized as honorable without probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant was medically cleared for discharge and was discharged on 26 Aug 03.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change the reason for his discharge.  Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAT evaluated the applicant’s request for benefits under the MGIB or refund of his contributions.  They make no recommendation.  In order for the applicant to qualify for MGIB benefits, the applicant’s discharge reason must be hardship, service connected disability, disability existing prior to entering active duty, physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force.  The applicant’s contribution to the MGIB was a pay reduction of $100.00 per month, not a pay deduction.  After 12 months, the Department of Defense pays the $1200.00 MGIB contribution.  It is not permitted by law to refund any of this money to the applicant.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 May 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 applicant's 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 primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Although the applicant may have had a medical condition while on active duty, it was not the reason that he was discharged.  The applicant has not presented sufficient evidence that he had an unfitting medical condition and that he should have been processed through the disability evaluation system.  Had he not been discharged for “unsatisfactory performance,” it appears that he would have been retained on active duty.  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-2004-00906 in Executive Session on 21 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Apr 04.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 5 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 04.