RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02166 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation (Unsatisfactory Performance) and separation code (JHJ) be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His performance was never in question or an issue. He has always performed satisfactory. He was discharged due to an injury that at the time made it impossible to complete the vigorous training program. He was attending the Pararescue Indoctrination Course and was injured. He entered the next available course and did not make it. He was given the choice to be retrained into another career field or be honorably discharged. He chose the honorable discharge because he wanted to serve again. He was not aware that his Reentry (RE) code would prevent him from serving again. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 18 Oct 11, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years. On 19 Apr 12, the applicant was notified by his squadron commander that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory duty performance, specifically for failing to progress in military training required to be qualified for service with the Air Force or for performance of primary duties. The reason for the proposed action was on 22 Mar 12, the applicant self-eliminated from the Pararescue Development Course. As a result, he was removed from the course. He declined an opportunity for reclassification consideration and requested discharge. On 19 Apr 12, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and, waived his right to consult with legal counsel and submit a statement in his own behalf. The base legal office found the case legally sufficient to support the separation, and on 27 Apr 12, the discharge authority approved the discharge. On 1 May 12, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of Unsatisfactory Performance, and received an RE code of 2C (Involuntary separation with honorable discharge). He served on active duty for a period of 6 months and 14 days. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the processing of his discharge. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the service characterization was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant self-eliminated from the Pararescue Development Course. As a result, he was removed from the course. He declined an opportunity for reclassification consideration. The applicant’s discharge was based on his unsatisfactory progress in training due to his self-elimination from training. He was given ample opportunity to improve his academic performance and was counseled on several occasions regarding his academic deficiencies. He was placed on quarters by medical authority and upon return to duty; he declined wash back to the course. The applicant stated that he was no longer motivated to continue training and requested discharge. The course failures were evidence of the applicant’s lack of motivation. The discharge record reveals the applicant was counseled and afforded an opportunity to improve his performance, but was met with negative results. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 Aug 13, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 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 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-2013-02166 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2013-02166 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 8 Jul 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13. Panel Chair