RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05330
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation, which reflects “Marginal 
Performer Assigned to Organizational Unit,” be changed. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a student leader of 50 men and attended leadership 
school, the police academy and combat school.

The applicant provides no documents in support of his request.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 May 1980, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force.  

On 14 May 1981, his commander notified him he was recommending 
he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 
39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific 
reasons are reflected in the Letter of Notification at Exhibit 
B.

On 14 May 1981, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification and waived his rights to consult with 
legal counsel or to submit statements.

On 19 Jun 1981, he received an honorable discharge.  The 
narrative reason for separation was “Marginal Performer Assigned 
to Organizational Unit.”  He served one year, one month and 
eight days of total active service.

________________________________________________________________

?
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states that they found no 
evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of his 
discharge.  The applicant apparently believes there is no 
information contained in his discharge record that reflects he 
should have been given a separation code of JEM, which denotes 
“Marginal Performer.”  However, DPSOR confirmed the separation 
code of JEM is correct.  His personnel records indicate he 
requested that his shift commander write a letter concerning his 
incompetency as a security policeman to expedite his separation 
from the Air Force.  He also informed his shift commander that 
he was trying to go through the proper channels to get 
discharged and if she could not help him he would take measures 
that were inappropriate.  His shift commander felt it would be 
detrimental for him to carry a weapon so she had him turn his 
weapon in.  Moreover, she stated his present defective attitude 
towards the Air Force has resulted in his work performance 
continuing to be a problem area.  The applicant stated that his 
personal problems would resolve if he were discharged and that 
he had no interest or motivation in remaining in the Air Force. 
The documentation on file in his master personnel records 
supports the basis for his narrative reason for separation.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 3 Feb 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant 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 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 responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 27 Aug 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

     , Panel Chair
     , Member
     , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-05330:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 2012.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 Jan 2013
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 2013.