RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02613
		INDEX CODE:	 100.06
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His discharge for unsatisfactory performance was unfair. He was discharged with a medical condition that has been rated 30 percent compensable by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  He was trying to complete technical training school with damage to his left knee and the Air Force refused to diagnose and treat this condition.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 July 2003, for a term of 4 years.

On 20 February 2004, he was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he 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 he failed block 2 and 3 with scores of 50%, 35%, and 65%.  Minimum passing score was 70%.  He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on 20 February 2004.  He waived his right to consult with counsel and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  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.  He was separated from the Air Force on 4 March 2004, 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.”  He served 7 months and 13 days on active duty.

On 26 October 2004, the applicant was informed by MRBR, that his application could not be processed without copies of his service medical records (SMR).  On 29 November 2004, the applicant was informed by MRBR that DVA indicated his records would not be made available to support this case because his records are required for an appeal to a rating decision.  He was given 30 days to provide comments concerning his service medical records and any other information relating to this application.  As of this date, no response has 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.  After a careful review of the evidence of record, it appears the applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in his required training program and was disenrolled from his technical training.  He was subsequently separated for unsatisfactory performance with an honorable discharge.  We are of the opinion that evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that his discharge was in error or contrary to the governing Air Force instructions, which implement the law.  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-2004-02613 in Executive Session on 13 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 12 May 04 w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Oct 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Nov 04.