RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04733 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His official records be corrected to change his Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JHJ (Involuntary Separation) to reflect a voluntary separation. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While in training for his 5-level, he requested withdrawal from the IC131 (Air Traffic Control) career field. He was given the option to request retraining, or separation. He requested separation, but he was never forced to withdraw from the 1C131 career field or to separate. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides an expanded statement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on information in the applicant’s official military records, he enlisted in the Air Force on 28 Mar 06. On 22 Jan 08, the applicant’s supervisor recommended he be withdrawn from the 1C131 (Air Traffic Control (ATC)) career field for his inability to consistently apply the knowledge necessary to perform at required standards, stating that his lack of strategic awareness and poor decision making in the approach position resulted in his failure to progress. On 20 Aug 08, his commander suspended the applicant’s Air Traffic Control System Certificate pending review of withdrawal actions for “Failure to Obtain Rating.” The applicant acknowledged receipt, indicated he agreed with the action, acknowledged his right to legal counsel, and indicated his desire to submit a statement. After reviewing the applicant’s statement, his commander recommended his withdrawal for “Failing to Progress in Upgrade Training,” and did not recommend he be retained in the Air Force. On 31 Dec 08, the applicant was honorably discharged for Unsatisfactory Performance and was credited with two years, nine months, and three days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the office of the Air Force office of responsibility which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice. There is insufficient evidence contained within the applicant’s military record to confirm the circumstances and facts surrounding the applicant’s discharge. Absent documentation, the presumption of regularity implies the applicant was afforded due process and the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction. The applicant submitted documents indicating he was having difficulty in training and some issues at home with his wife. Since the applicant requested to withdraw from the Air Traffic Control Program, he was involuntarily separated for failure to progress in on-the-job training. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors of injustice in the discharge process. A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPSOS 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 23 Mar 12 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 not timely filed; however it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the applicant’s contention that he requested withdrawal from the Air Traffic Control career field, his official records clearly reflect the reason for his elimination from upgrade training was “lack of situational awareness and poor decision making, which resulted in his failure to progress.” Subsequent to his failing upgrade training, his commander did not recommend him for retention in the Air Force. While personal issues may have factored into leadership’s decision to separate him, the fundamental basis for his separation was unsatisfactory performance, which resulted in his involuntary separation as reflected by the SPD code on his DD Form 214. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES 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-2011-04733 in Executive Session on 5 Jun 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04733 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 11, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 7 Feb 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 12.