RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01514 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Reentry (RE) code 2C, Approved Honorable Involuntary Separation or Entry Level Separation, be changed to allow him to return to service. 2. His Separation Code JHJ, Unsatisfactory Performance, be changed to allow him to return to service. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is asking to be granted a chance at serving in the military. The Air Force will not let him back in because he has less than 2-years of service and the other branches of service are strict on their waivers of these codes. In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 October 2008. 2. On 9 June 2009, his commander notified him that he was recommending him for discharge under the provisions of Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208 Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.26.3. for failure to progress in military training required to be qualified for service with the Air Force or for performance of primary duty. Specifically, the applicant failed to meet academic standards with 3 written exam scores below the minimum passing score of 70 percent. 3. On 9 June 2009, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s intent to discharge him and waived his right to consult counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. 4. Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient the discharge authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged with an honorable character of service. The applicant was discharged effective 23 June 2009. He was credited with serving 8 months, and 3 days of active duty service. 5. The applicant submitted an appeal for change of his Reentry and Narrative Reason for Separation codes to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). He was offered and declined a personal appearance before the AFDRB, with counsel. On 14 February 2013, the AFDRB found no evidence of impropriety or inequity that would warrant an upgrade of his discharge. The AFDRB concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. In view of the forgoing findings the Board further concluded there was no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, and determined the applicant’s discharge should not be changed. The applicant was advised that since his case was denied by the AFDRB he had the right to appeal to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). ______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSO states the applicant received counseling on several occasions and was afforded ample opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. They found no error or injustices in the processing of the discharge action. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the separation code and reentry code 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/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his appeal the applicant provides a written statement expressing that he has a desperate desire to serve in the Army Reserve. He further states he has the aptitude and the motivation to serve his country and requests he be afforded the chance to do a new job. The applicant’s complete response 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 timely filed. 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 primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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 12 December 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01514: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 20 March 2013, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 19 May 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 May 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 June 2013. 1 2