RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04108 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His narrative reason for separation, “marginal performer 
assigned to organizational unit,” be changed to not reflect him 
as a marginal performer. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He failed his upgrade test and does not think he should be 
labeled as a marginal performer. In 2009, when he was 
considered for promotion he was told he could not be promoted 
because of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty. He should not continue to be punished for his 
childhood infractions. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 July 1980. 
On 1 July 1982 he was notified of his commander’s intent to 
discharge him from the Air Force for marginal performance. 
Specifically, his presence created an administrative burden to 
the organization due to minor military and disciplinary 
infractions. He received a 7 on his Airman Performance rating, 
he was late for work, he disappeared from his duty section and 
he was in possession of marijuana. The applicant acknowledged 
his commander’s intent and noted that he did not wish to be 
retained in the Air Force. He spoke with defense counsel, 
however, he did not submit matters on his behalf. On 20 July 
1982, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally 
sufficient. On 21 July 1982, the commander approved the 
discharge. 

 


He was honorably discharged on 26 July 1982. His narrative 
reason for separation was listed as marginal performer assigned 
to organizational unit. He was credited with 1 year, 11 months 
and 27 days of active duty service. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia provided a copy of an 
investigation report (Exhibit C). 

 

On 14 February 2012, the FBI investigation and a request for 
post-service information were forwarded to the applicant for 
response 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 
that occurred during the discharge process. Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. 
Based on the applicant’s stated request, it appears he believes 
he has a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 
However, his DD Form 214 clearly indicates his service was 
characterized as honorable. Regarding his narrative reason for 
separation, the applicant has provided no evidence, which would 
lead us to believe the narrative reason for separation was 
improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing 
regulation and we are not persuaded by the evidence before us it 
should be changed on the basis of clemency. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which 
to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-04108 in Executive Session on 27 March 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 
 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Oct 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Investigative Report. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Feb 12.