RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02137

						COUNSEL:  

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “JHJ” which denotes “Unsuitability/unsatisfactory performance” be changed.

His narrative reason for separation of “Unsatisfactory Performance” be changed.

His Reentry (RE) Code of “2C” which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge or entry level separation without characterization of service” be changed to permit reenlistment in the Armed Forces.    

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was an honor graduate from Basic Military Training (BMT), which placed him in the top 10 percent of his peer group.  He attempted to complete pararescue training but self-eliminated.  He deserves to be reclassified within the Air Force or permitted to reenlist in another branch of service.  However, his SPD code, narrative reason for separation and RE code have made it impossible for him to reenlist.  Failing at pararescue training should not be punishment or grounds to prohibit him from continuing his military service.

He submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) (docket number FD-2016-0155).  However, it is unclear which Board is the proper authority to grant relief.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 21 July 2015.

According to AF IMT 174, Record of Individual Counseling, dated 4 February 2016, the applicant self-eliminated from the pararescue indoctrination course.  He stated he was mentally stressed to the point he had thoughts of self-harm as he was not progressing in the course.  

On 10 February 2016, the applicant signed the Memorandum for Battlefield Airmen Trainees stating he had been advised that if he failed to perform or self-eliminate from training, at any time, for any reason, the Air Force could administratively discharge him without further counseling or rehabilitation.  

In a letter dated 10 February 2016, the applicant stated that having been eliminated from his training, he preferred to be considered for separation rather than being reclassified into a new Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).  He also stated he understood if his request was granted he could be ineligible to reenlist in the armed services depending on the reenlistment code granted him by the discharge authority.    

AETC Form 125A, Record of Administrative Training Action, dated 12 February 2016, reflects the applicant while awaiting reclassification requested discharge.    

On 22 February 2016, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend he be discharged.  The reason for the discharge recommendation was that on 4 February 2016, he self-eliminated from the pararescue indoctrination course.  The applicant stated he was mentally stressed to the point of harming himself and signed AF IMT 174, Record of Individual Counseling, dated 4 February 2016 acknowledging he understood his decision could lead to his involuntary discharge.  The applicant also signed a discharge preference request memorandum dated 10 February 2016, waiving his option to be considered for reclassification.  The applicant made these decisions of his own free will, without coercion.  As a result he was eliminated from training with a recommendation for administrative discharge in accordance with Air Force policy. 

On 23 February 2016, the applicant acknowledged the discharge notification, his right to consult counsel and submitted statements in his own behalf.  

In a letter dated 23 February 2016, he stated he came to the realization that the Air Force presented the best possible outcomes and if allowed to remain in the Air Force, his first choice would be reclassification into fire protection, his second choice would be Survival, Evasion, Rescue, and Escape (SERE) specialty and his last choice would be discharge from the Air Force and reenlistment into the Navy as an aviation rescue swimmer.

On 24 February 2016, the staff judge advocate found the recommendation for discharge legally sufficient.  

On 4 March 2016, the discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge.

On 7 March 2016, the applicant was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “unsatisfactory performance,” SPD code “JHJ” and RE Code “2C.”  He served 7 months and 17 days of active duty service.  

The applicant provides a letter from his father which states that after self-eliminating and awaiting reclassification, the applicant visited with a Navy recruiter who led him to believe he would be better off with separation than reenlistment.  The applicant hastily submitted a request for separation as he was unsure of how long the reclassification process would take.  Just days later, he submitted a written request to be retained and be reclassified.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial for change of the SPD code and narrative reason for separation.  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.  

AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.25 states airmen should be discharged when their unsatisfactory performance or conduct shows they are not qualified for service with the Air Force.  The commander indicated the applicant was given opportunities to either continue with his training or to request consideration for reclassification.  However, the applicant decided to self-eliminate from training and refused reclassification.  As a result, discharge action was appropriate.  DP2STM-SEP concurs with the decision.  Therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on his DD Form 214.   Should the Board grant relief, his SPD code should be corrected to “JFF” and the corresponding narrative reason for separation reflect “Secretarial Authority.”  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SSM (Reenlistments) recommends denial for change of RE code of “2C.”  The applicant did not fail out of technical school but self-eliminated from the course and then chose not to exercise his option to be considered for reclassification.  All members who self-eliminate from their initial technical school and choose not to be considered for reclassification are involuntarily discharged and given a RE code “2C.”  Although the applicant feels RE Code “2C” is not fair; it is the same RE code all airmen receive in his situation and is fair and equitable based on this standard.  Should the Board grant relief, recommend the Board direct his RE code be corrected to reflect “3K,” which denotes “Reserved for use by AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other RE code applies or is appropriate.”     

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SSM (Reenlistments) evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Air Force recommends RE code “3K” if the Board grants relief.  He would appreciate and accept this correction.  He takes exception that he chose not to be considered for reclassification.  After receiving bad information from the Navy recruiter, he initially chose separation over reclassification but quickly reversed course after consultation with his family.  It is unknown and not indicated whether the discharge authority took into account his request for retention or considered the letters of support for retention which he provides.   The RE code of “2C” is punitive as it deprives him, a BMT honor graduate, from future military service.  A “3K” would allow the military to consider reentry with appropriate waivers.

The narrative reason for separation of “unsatisfactory duty performance” is erroneous.  AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26.3 was amended to read “failure to progress in military training required to be qualified for service with the Air Force or for performance of primary duties.”  He did fail to progress in military training but it was not for unsatisfactory performance of duties.  

He signed the Pararescue Volunteer Fact Sheet which in paragraph 11 states that 90 percent of the pararescue candidates wash out.  It states that wash outs would be considered for discharge or reclassification.  Nowhere did it state that discharge would be punitive and act as a bar to re-entry in another military branch.  It should be permitted for the 90 percent of pararescue candidates who wash out to seek reclassification or reentry without the punitive barrier of a negative SPD code.

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

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, to include his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion 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 requested relief.

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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2016-02137 in Executive Session on 7 September 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-02137 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 2016, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 16 August
  2016.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SSM (Reenlistments), dated
			  12 December 2016.  
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 December 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, 6 January 2017, w/atchs.  

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.