RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-03777

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His character of service be changed from General, (Under 
Honorable Conditions), to Honorable.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like to receive his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefit.  
He takes responsibility for his actions.  He also served his 
country justly and would like to have what was promised to him, 
granted.  He fulfilled the necessary requirement of paying one 
year into the MGIB and he served four years.  That should allow 
him to use the MGIB to further his education for the sake of his 
family.  He has recently married and also obtained a license in 
ministry.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 June 1999.  

On 14 August 2003, his commander notified him that he was 
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for 
involuntary convenience of the government for unsatisfactory 
performance – irresponsibility in the management of personal 
finances in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.26.4., and AFPD 36-32 Military 
Retirements and Separations.  The specific reason for the 
proposed action was the applicant failed to disclose four 
delinquent accounts totaling approximately $3, 144.00, on his 
security clearance application which posed a significant 
security issue.  As a result, his access to classified 
information was suspended pending resolution of the financial 
matters.  The applicant was asked to provide specific financial 
information within 90 days of the suspension.  On 2 June 2003, 
the applicant submitted a letter to his supervisor stating that 
he refused to provide any additional financial information to 
regain his security clearance.  

On 14 August 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
commander’s intent to discharge him and his right to consult 
counsel, submit statements in his own behalf or waive either of 
these rights.  On 19 August 2003, the applicant opted to consult 
counsel but waived his right to submit statements in his own 
behalf.  

Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the 
discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed the 
applicant be involuntarily separated from the Air Force for the 
convenience of the government.  The applicant was discharged on 
3 September 2003, with a narrative reason for separation of 
“unsatisfactory performance”, and was credited with 4 years, 
2 months and 4 days of active duty service.  
________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that the 
applicant's discharge was based on his unsatisfactory 
performance in his refusal to regain his security clearance.  He 
was given ample opportunity to improve his performance and 
counseled on several occasions regarding his deficiencies.  The 
discharge record reveals the applicant was counseled and 
afforded an opportunity to improve his performance.  

2.  In an effort to rehabilitate the applicant, he was formally 
counseled in his feedback session on the importance of his 
security clearance and given a referral EPR with a "2" rating 
for his financial irresponsibility.  The applicant's refusal to 
submit additional information to regain his security clearance 
showed his resistance to comply with the law and Air Force 
standards.

3.  Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the applicant’s discharge to include the 
characterization of service was consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and 
was within the discretion of discharge authority.  The applicant 
did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices 
that occurred in the discharge processing..  

The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

________________________________________________________________






APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  In his response, the applicant reiterates his contentions 
that he fulfilled the necessary requirement of paying into the 
MGIB and he served four years, which should allow him to use the 
MGIB to further his education.  He further states that education 
is very important to him, as evidenced by his receipt of his 
ministry license, and he would like to receive his MGIB benefits 
to further his education and have an opportunity to make a 
better life for his wife.  

2.  The applicant explains that he was raised in a home where 
finances were never taught.  He was also a victim of identity 
theft, while in the Air Force, which makes the case on his 
credit report invalid.  He states that since being separated 
from the Air Force, he has remained in the work force in jobs 
that did not match his qualifications based on the training he 
received in the Air Force.  

3.  Additionally, he was never notified of his right to obtain a 
temporary clearance so that he could still come to work and 
perform his duties.  Instead, he was reassigned to the Civil 
Engineering (CE) Squadron, which was clearly a place of 
punishment for Airmen in the Space Operations Squadron.  While 
in the CE Squadron, he excelled and even received recognition as 
Airman of the Quarter.  His CE Squadron supervisor provided 
comments in his EPR that indicated his performance was more than 
just satisfactory.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E.  

________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred during the discharge process.  Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority.  
The applicant has provided no evidence, which would lead us to 
believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation, or unduly harsh.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis upon which 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 16 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
      , Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-03777:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated 7 July 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 October 2012.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 October 2012.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 November 2012, 
w/atchs.




                                   
                                  

AFBCMR
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762




Dear:

	Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 
10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03777. 

	After careful consideration of your application and military records, the Board determined 
that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.  
Accordingly, the Board denied your application.

	You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for consideration by the 
Board.  In the absence of such additional evidence, a further review of your application is not 
possible.

	

Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings


















4





 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC


Office of the Assistant Secretary