RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03754 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed to “Early Discharge,” instead of “Unsatisfactory Performance” in order to receive Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When she failed to pass her test for her job, she was offered an early discharge from the Air Force; however, her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, states “Unsatisfactory Performance.” In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 and Airman Performance Report (APR). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate she enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 Dec 85. On 17 Apr 87, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance. The specific reason for the action was the applicant’s failure to progress in on-the-job training. On 17 Apr 87, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, her right to consult with legal counsel, and submit statements in her own behalf and, on the same date, she waived her right to submit statements. On 13 May 87, the case was found legally sufficient and, on 14 May 87, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge. On 14 May 87, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Unsatisfactory Performance.” She was credited with one year, five months and two days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. Numerous attempts were made to rehabilitate and assist the applicant with her upgrade training. She was afforded ample opportunity to overcome her deficiencies. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the service characterization was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the processing of her discharge and has provided no facts warranting a change to her narrative reason for separation. A complete copy of the DPSOR 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 14 Nov 13 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. 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 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-2013-03754 in Executive Session on 15 May 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Oct 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Nov 13. Panel Chair