RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02676
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Narrative Reason for Separation of “Involuntary Discharge: Substandard Performance of Duty” and the corresponding Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “GHK” be changed to “Voluntary Separation.”

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 1990, while deployed to a Saudi desert location, he was accused of disobeying a direct order by failing to report to the Brigade Headquarters for a night-time meeting with his Air Force commanders.  However, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) rules-of-engagement in effect at the time restricted travel to convoys of two or more vehicles after dark.  The Air Force unit only had one Humvee and the Army Battalion commander that he was attached to would not release any others.  As a result, he had to wait until midnight when the battalion was on maneuvers before he could reach his brigade headquarters.  Once there, he found his superiors asleep and the next day he was accused of disobeying their orders.

He requests this change so that he can reenlist.  He would like to do his part in the War on Terror to help bring the conflict to a close.  He also wants a chance to clear his name and prove to his country that his commission was not wrong.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned and entered active duty on 22 April 1983.  He served as an A-10 fighter pilot, forward air controller and was progressively promoted to the grade of captain with an effective date of 22 April 1987.  

On 15 November 1991, the wing commander initiated discharge action against the applicant for substandard duty performance, and the commission of serious acts of misconduct and professional dereliction which compromised his ability to hold positions of trust and to assume continuing leadership responsibilities.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were based on his actions between 15 December 1989 and 14 December 1990, where he performed below expected standards in leadership skills and judgment.  He disobeyed directives and guidance and continually displayed a severe lack of professionalism.  In addition, between 20 October 1990 and 12 August 1991, he committed several acts of misconduct and professional dereliction, including flying in restricted airspace, failing to report for a scheduled sortie, failing to attend scheduled meetings, disobeying orders, for charging a personal call between Saudi Arabia and the US, and for using profane language.  

On 2 January 1992, the applicant was notified of the discharge action against him under AFR 36-2 and of his requirement to show cause for retention on active duty.  He was advised that the least favorable service characterization which could be approved was an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  On 17 April 1992, the commander amended the Notification of Discharge Action under AFR 36-2 letter, dated 2 January 1992, to include additional “Statement of Reasons.”  The Board of Inquiry (BOI) recommended the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force for failure to properly discharge duties equal to his grade and experience and for a downward trend in his duty performance resulting in an unacceptable record of effectiveness under AFR 36‑2, with an honorable discharge.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the BOI proceedings and after consulting with counsel, he submitted a response to the BOI.  The ACC/CS supported the findings of the BOI and recommended the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.  The case was reviewed by all appropriate legal agencies to include HQ AFLSA/JAJM and forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC).  SAF/PC directed the applicant be removed from active duty with an honorable discharge.

On 9 November 1992, the applicant was honorably discharged from all appointments under the provisions of AFR 36-12, with a narrative reason for separation of Involuntary Discharge; Substandard Performance of Duty and a corresponding SPD code of “GHK.”  

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  The applicant’s allegation was heard by the board members as indicated in the BOI proceedings and it would be inappropriate to substitute DPSOS’s judgment for that of the board members.  

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 and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing, nor did he provide any facts warranting a change to his separation code or his narrative reason for separation.  

The HQ AFPC/DPSOS’s complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 September 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice warranting corrective action.  The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe his separation or his narrative reason for separation of involuntary discharge for substandard performance of duty was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing directives.  In view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02676 in Executive Session on 23 June 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 08. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 15 Aug 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Sep 08.

								
								Chair