RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02416 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His narrative reason for separation be changed from unsatisfactory performance to reduction in force or separation authorized by HQ USAF. 2. His separation code (SPD) be changed from JHJ (unsatisfactory performance) to JCC (reduction in force) or JHF (failure to complete course action). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He was unfairly discharged instead of being reclassified. 2. His narrative reason for separation and SPD code should reflect reduction in force instead of unsatisfactory performance. 3. The fact he is unable to serve again because he failed tests is an injustice. Air Force policy dictates that airmen will be given an opportunity to overcome their deficiencies, but he was not. He was advised that he would be able to be reclassified, but was instead discharged without being given an opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. 4. Air Force policy dictates a commander must weigh the airman’s conduct, military deportment, and duty performance against those other airmen. He was discharged without consideration given to his entire record. While on active duty there were no disciplinary actions against him. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 20 Jun 12, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. The applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for failure to progress in military training. The specific reasons for the discharge action was that on or about 14 Jan 13 and 12 Feb 13, the applicant failed his A+ Essentials examination, scoring 613 and 616 when a score of 675 was required to pass. On 14 Feb 13, the applicant was academically eliminated from his technical training. The applicant’s commander noted in the recommendation for discharge that he initially recommended the applicant for reclassification into another career field, however; under the AF/A1PT and 2 AF/CC FY13 reclassification/end strength guidance, reclassification was no longer an option and discharge was deemed to be in the best interest of the Air Force. Furthermore, since reclassification cases are approved based on Air Force needs, he did not recommend the applicant for probation and rehabilitation. On 12 Mar 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, consulted legal counsel, and elected to submit a statement on his behalf. On 13 Mar 13, the case was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority directed the applicant be honorably discharged without probation and rehabilitation the same day. On 15 Mar 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge and was credited with nine months and four days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant failed two critical examinations on two separation occasions. He had 28 days between the examinations to prepare himself to successfully complete the examination. A passing score was mandatory to progress in the class, thus, the applicant was eliminated from the course. He was precluded from retraining into another career field due to end strength requirements. The documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records indicates the discharge, to include the type of separation, separation code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service, was appropriately administered and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant has not provided any evidence or identified any error or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant questions whether failing a test twice is a reason to bar reentry for military service. While it appears his discharge was processed in accordance with the governing instruction, he believes the process should be reviewed for inconsistencies. He was told during his out processing that since he received an honorable discharge he could reenlist in six months. He did not know what the codes meant until he went to reenlist. He asks that consideration be given to the entire basis for his discharge which was mostly based on the reclassification denial and to meet end strengths and budgetary constraints. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice. The applicant argues that his separation for unsatisfactory performance is unjust when his commander supported his retention and reclassification and that it is unfair that he is forever barred to serve for failing two tests, when his record of performance is otherwise strong. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we agree. We note the applicant has not presented any evidence to indicate an error occurred during the request for reclassification or discharge processes. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s was honorable discharge for unsatisfactory performance was consistent with the substantive requirements of the governing instructions and within the commander’s discretionary authority. He has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe his separation was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing directive, or the narrative reason for separation and or the separation code issued were erroneous or inappropriately assigned. Nevertheless, consideration of this Board is not limited to evaluating the events that precipitated the discharge. In this respect, it may base its decision on matters of equity and justice, rather than simply on whether rules and regulations, which existed at the time of the discharge, were followed. Under this broader mandate and after careful consideration of the applicant’s record of service and his commander’s unequivocal support of his retention, we believe it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s record so that he may once again apply for enlistment. Whether or not he is successful will be based on the needs of the service, provided he is otherwise qualified. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of his discharge on 15 March 2013, the narrative reason for his discharge was “Secretarial Authority,” with a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “KFF.” The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02416 in Executive Session on 14 Oct 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 Dec 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, 31 Jan 14, w/atchs.