RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02593

	COUNSEL: NONE	

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation of “unsatisfactory performance” and separation code of “JHJ” be changed to reflect “satisfactory performance” on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He met with an assigned flight surgeon and upon examination; it was determined he had difficulties focusing on training and duties due to rapid rotating sleep cycles, which was caused by his work schedule.  His unsatisfactory performance and early discharge should be recorded as a sleep disorder rather than the inability to perform.  He discovered the implication of his separation code when Veteran Affairs (VA) rejected a home loan.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 28 Nov 84.

On 13 Nov 85, according to the Chief of Mental Health Services and Chief of Physical Examination and Standards, the applicant’s present symptoms inhibited adequate performance as an air traffic controller.  He possessed a hazard to flying safety if he continued to perform air traffic control duties.    

On 29 Apr 86, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of Air Force Regulation 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for unsatisfactory performance.  Specifically, for his failure to progress in on-the-job training.  The applicant expressed a “fear of controlling” while on air traffic control duty.  

On 6 May 86, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 12 Jun 86.  

On 20 Jun 86, the applicant was discharged with an honorable character of service, a separation code of “JHJ” (Unsatisfactory Performance), and a narrative reason of separation of unsatisfactory performance.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory’s at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denying the application.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. We found no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denying the application.  The narrative reason for discharge was substantiated by the records, which provided specifics of the applicant’s unsatisfactory air traffic controller duty performance.  Circadian rhythm disturbance can adversely affect performance, however, the applicant professed a performance anxiety, which could occur even if the applicant had an adequate amount of sleep and no rotating schedules.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 28 Feb 17 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error on injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2STM and the BCMR Medical Advisor and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Despite the applicant’s claim of a sleep disorder relative to his performance, the Board believes the record supports the commander’s decision to discharge the applicant due to his failure to progress satisfactorily within his required career field training schedule.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-02593 in Executive Session on 1 May 18:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
 Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 4 Oct 16.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 23 Jan 17
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 28 Feb 17.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.