RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04139

	COUNSEL: NONE
 
 	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He never received an Article 15 or any negative counseling.  He received good performance ratings and awards.  The narrative reason was because he failed his career development course (CDC). The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former senior airman. 

On 9 Apr 97, the applicant was notified of the recommendation for discharge for unsatisfactory performance, failure to progress in on the job training (OJT).  Specifically, he failed to pass his first and second end of course CDC examinations.  

On 15 Apr 97, the discharge recommendation was found legally sufficient and approved by the discharge authority.  

On 22 Apr 97, the applicant was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of “Unsatisfactory Performance.”  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial.  The applicant has not filed a timely petition.  It has been more than 20 years since his discharge and he has not provided a valid reason for not filing a more timely application.  Furthermore, the discharge was consistent with the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 26 Jun 17 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 21 Aug 17.  For 20 years, he has allowed his separation reason to remain on his DD Form 214.  He recognizes it should have been addressed earlier. The narrative reason for separation has caused him distress over the years with potential employers and he endures questioning behind the reason for his separation.  He is a decorated veteran.  He demonstrated his ability to do his job as an F-16 crew chief.  Unfortunately, he does not test well.  

At the time, his leadership was willing to request the base commander support a waiver of his CDC scores and award him his five skill level with the stipulation that he would renew his contract for an additional 4 years.  However, he was not willing to make the commitment.  The narrative reason for separation is misleading.  He requests the Board change his narrative reason to one that will not impact his future employment opportunities.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not 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 or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2STM-SEP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  Moreover, the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

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-2016-04139 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, w/atchs, dated 11 Oct 16. 
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 19 Apr 17. 
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 26 Jun 17.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 21 Aug 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.