RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03528 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected in items 26, Separation Code, “JHJ,” and 28, Narrative Reason For Separation, “Unsatisfactory Performance,” to allow him to enlist in the Georgia, Air National Guard. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes that the record is wrong because he asked to leave active duty to join the Georgia, Air National Guard. He submitted a letter of request to his commander and she approved his request in accordance with AFI 36-3205, Applying for the Palace Chase and Palace Front Programs. Additionally, at no time did he fail a school in the combat control pipeline so this does not fit the “unsatisfactory performance” in block 28 of his DD Form 214. In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his letter to his congressional representative, letters of recommendation and documents extracted from his military personnel records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 February 2010. On 5 February 2013, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.26.3, Unsatisfactory Duty Performance, specifically, failure to progress in military training required to be qualified for service with the Air Force or for performance of primary duties. The reason for this action was as a result of receiving nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for violation of Article 134, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the applicant was eliminated from the Combat Control Apprentice Course (CCAC) and not allowed to retrain. The applicant signed a memorandum dated 31 January 2013, that he refused to be reclassified into another Air Force Specialty Code. Therefore, he was recommended for discharge. On 8 February 2013, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of his right to consult legal counsel as well as submit a statement to the commander for consideration. The applicant opted to consult legal counsel and submit a statement in his behalf. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be separated from the Air Force with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The applicant was credited with completing 3 years and 24 days of active duty service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the applicant received counseling on several occasions and was afforded many opportunities to overcome his deficiencies. They found no evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the discharge action, nor did the applicant submit any such evidence. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation and the separation code were consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant's discharge was based on his unsatisfactory progress in training based upon his elimination from technical training school. He was given the opportunity to reclassify into another Air Force Specialty Code; however, he refused and signed a statement with the understanding that discharge would be the next course of action. The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant’s counsel on 10 January 2014, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 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. The applicant has provided no evidence, which would lead us to believe the separation code and narrative reason for separation were contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation. We note the applicant’s contention that he asked to leave active duty to join the Air National Guard and his commander approved his request in accordance with AFI 36-3205, Applying for the Palace Chase and Palace Front Programs. However, the applicant has not provided any evidence showing that he was approved for this type of separation. To the contrary, the evidence established shows the applicant's commander approved the recommendation for his administrative discharge. The applicant has not provided evidence to persuade us otherwise and we agree with the opinion and the 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 persuasive 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 counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 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 this application in Executive Session on 1 April 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03528 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 March 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 3 December 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 January 2014. 1 2