RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02308
						INDEX CODE 100.06, 110.01, 110.02
							COUNSEL:  None

	 		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) and Separation Program Designator (SPD) codes and separation date be changed.

[Note:  The separation date was administratively changed to 20 Jul 94, as requested.]

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The narrative reason for discharge (Unsatisfactory Performance) is incorrect.  She twice failed her Career Development Course (CDC) test.  One month after her discharge this narrative reason was deemed inappropriate for her rank of airman and redesignated for staff sergeants and above.  Her discharge date should be 20 Jul 94, not 20 Jul 93.  She wants to qualify for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 Mar 93, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and accepted MGIB enrollment.  Following basic military training, she was assigned to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, for training as an Information Management Specialist.

Although characterized as a superior enlisted member with a positive attitude, the applicant failed to achieve a passing score on her CDC end-of-course examination on 24 Feb and 14 Apr 94, and could not be upgraded to the five-skill level for her career specialty.

On 7 Jun 94, she elected to accept separation from the Air Force in lieu of a waiver of discharge processing.

In a 23 Jul [sic] 94 letter, the supervisor explained the steps taken to help the applicant pass her CDC.  The supervisor added that, although the applicant did not pass her end-of-course test, her on-the-job qualification and performance was excellent.

On 24 Jun 94, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend honorable discharge for failure to progress in on-the-job training (OJT).  

On 27 Jun 94, after consulting counsel, the applicant waived her option to submit statements.  The commander subsequently recommended the applicant for an honorable discharge for unsatisfactory performance.  Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were not recommended.

Legal review found the case sufficient on 11 Jul 94 and, on 15 Jul 94, the discharge approved the recommended honorable discharge without P&R.

An AF Form 100, dated 19 Jul 94, indicated the applicant’s effective discharge date was to be 20 Jul 94.

On 20 Jul 94, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of airman after one year, four months and nine days of active service.  Her SPD was JHJ (Unsatisfactory Performance) and her RE code was 2C (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge). 

Although the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflected her correct amount of active duty service, it listed her discharge date as 20 Jul 93, rather than 94.  As a result, on 6 Jan 95, HQ AFMPC/DPMDOA advised the applicant her separation document had been administratively corrected to reflect a separation date of 20 Jul 94, rather than 20 Jul 93.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

HQ AFPC/DPPAE notes the 6 Jan 95 administrative correction regarding the separation date.  They recommended against changing the RE code as there is no error in the applicant’s records.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRSP believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant has not substantiated any errors or injustices and her appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAT advises that DOD records indicate the applicant accepted MGIB enrollment on 12 Mar 93.  The applicant is not eligible for MGIB because she completed less than a full term of service.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) may award MGIB education benefits to individuals who leave active duty prior to completing a fully term of service if the individual was separated for hardship, service-connected disability, disability existing prior to entering active duty, physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION: 

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 Oct 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s separation date was administratively changed as requested to 20 Jul 94.  Therefore, the SPD and RE codes are the only issues requiring our consideration.  The applicant appears to have been an exemplary enlisted member, but because she twice failed to pass her CDC tests, she could not be upgraded to the five-skill level for her career specialty.  However, in lieu of a waiver of discharge processing, the applicant elected separation.  At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished SPD and RE codes predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.  The applicant’s RE and SPD codes reflect she failed to pass her CDC exams and was separated with an honorable characterization of service.  As the applicant has provided no persuasive evidence demonstrating these separation codes are in error, we find no compelling basis on which to recommend approval.

_________________________________________________________________

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 18 November 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02308 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Sep 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Sep 04.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 3 Oct 04.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.