BC-2015-01081RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01101

 				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated into the Air Force.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She failed her M4 weapons training multiple times not knowing 
that she was wearing the wrong prescription while operating her 
weapon.  She was never given the opportunity to re-fire wearing 
the correct prescription.  She has qualified on other weapons 
systems with no problems and believes she can qualify on the M4 
if given the opportunity to fire with the correct lenses. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 6 September 2011. 
On 2 June 2014, she was notified of her commander’s intent to 
discharge her for unsatisfactory performance.  Specifically, the 
applicant failed to qualify on the M4 carbine/M16 rifle, the 
primary firearm for security forces personnel on 7 occasions.  
On 5 June 2014, the applicant acknowledged her commanders intent 
to discharge her.  She noted that counsel was not accessible due 
to regional training event and scheduled leave.  She also 
submitted statements for her commander’s consideration.  On 
5 June 2014, the separation authority approved the discharge and 
directed that she be separated.  

On 20 June 2014, the applicant was discharged from the Air 
Force.  Her reason for separation was listed as unsatisfactory 
performance and her service was characterized as honorable.  She 
was credited with 2 years, 9 months and 15 days of active duty 
service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, para 5.25 states that “airmen should be 
discharged when their unsatisfactory performance or conduct 
shows they are not qualified for service with the Air Force. 
Performance in the Air Force includes, but is not limited to: 
work done as assigned duties, military training, bearing, and 
behavior”.  

The applicant was given multiple opportunities to qualify in the 
required weapon but efforts met with no success.  According to 
the commander, the applicant not only failed the qualification 
seven times, after each failure she was given an opportunity to 
re-fire and failed each time, giving a total of 14 failures.  
The commander also indicated that the applicant had numerous 
opportunities to address any issues she had with her eye 
prescription in order to qualify.  The commander concluded that 
the countless man-hours and resources expended to help the 
applicant meet the standard for her primary duty weapon were 
unsuccessful and continued service in the Air Force was not 
warranted.  As a result, discharge action was initiated.  The 
SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as 
indicated.  

The applicant’s character of service is also correct as 
indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty.  Based on the facts, the 
applicant’s discharge did not involve any additional misconduct; 
therefore, the honorable service characterization recommended by 
the commander and decided by the base discharge authority was 
the appropriate action.  The applicant’s ability to re-enter the 
military is not strictly tied to the SPD code.  The re-
enlistment (RE) code is also a factor that is determined based 
on the separation reason. 

The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority.  There is no evidence of 
an error or injustice in the discharge processing.     

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 on 14 September 2015 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been 
received by this office.


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 an 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 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2015-01101 in Executive Session on 15 October 2015 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	
The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, DPSOR-SEP, dated 3 Jun 15.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 15.