RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00066
		INDEX CODE:  100.00

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 MAY 2006

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect award of Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His security forces commander assured him that he would have educational benefits under the (MGIB).  However, when he applied, he was denied.  He was discharged three months short of serving three years.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 Oct 00 for a period of four years.  He was promoted to the grade of airman first class with an effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 17 May 02.  He received two enlisted performance reports with promotion recommendation ratings of four (9 Jun 02) and two (referral) (28 Apr 03), respectively (on a scale of one to five).

On 1 May 03, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for Unsatisfactory Performance--Failure to Progress in On-the-Job Training (OJT).  

The reasons for the proposed action were that on 24 Sep 02 and 19 Nov 02, applicant failed to make satisfactory progress in a required on-the-job training (OJT) program.  The applicant was eliminated from the Security Forces Career Development training course for academic deficiency after failing the end of course examination twice with scores of 55% and 59%--minimum passing was 65%.  Prior to disenrollment, applicant was counseled concerning his performance and received individualized assistance with negative results.

On 7 May 03, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and after consulting with counsel and having been advised of his rights, submitted a statement in his own behalf.  On 9 Jun 03, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended an honorable discharge.  On that same date, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed he be honorably discharged upon medical clearance qualification.

On 25 Jun 03, applicant was honorably discharged by reason of “Unsatisfactory Performance,” and was issued an RE code of 2C.  He was credited with 2 years, 8 months, and 16 days of active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAT addressed the applicant’s request for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.  They state that the law provides benefits if an individual separates with less than a full term of service for hardship, service-connected disability, disability existing prior to entering active duty, physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force.

They provided no recommendation.  The applicant’s commander may have misinformed him on eligibility requirements for MGIB.  However, the applicant’s record contains a DD Form 2648, Preseparation Counseling Checklist.  The applicant would have been referred to the local education office for MGIB counseling.  If, in fact, the applicant sought preseparation counseling from the education office, a qualified counselor would have informed him of MGIB ineligibility based on his “for cause” discharge and not completing a full term of service.

A complete copy of the 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 11 Feb 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  Applicant’s contention that his commander assured him that he would have his education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill is duly noted; however, other than his own assertions he has provided no evidence to substantiate his claim.  We note applicant left active duty on 25 Jun 03 with an honorable discharge after serving 2 years, 8 months, and 16 days.  The law provides for MGIB benefits if an individual separates with less than a full term of service for hardship, service-connected disability, disability existing prior to entering active duty, physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force.  The applicant’s reason for discharge was “Unsatisfactory Performance.”  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00066 in Executive Session on 26 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Dec 04. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 18 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 05.

                                  
                                   Chair