RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-00566
		COUNSEL:  NONE
						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation “Unsatisfactory Performance” be changed to "Released from Active Duty." 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

More than six years have passed since his discharge from the Air Force.  He has excelled in civilian life and would like to pursue a career in federal service/law enforcement.  The narrative reason he received has made it difficult to obtain employment. 

In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his DD Form 214 and his AF Form 100, Request an Authorization for Separation.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 June 1997, the applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air Force.

On 23 April 2001, he received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) stating he lacked the basic maturity, judgement and decisiveness to follow orders.  On 19 November 2001, he received another referral OPR stating he did not demonstrate the qualities of an Air Force officer.  Effective 10 October 2002, he was discharged for unsatisfactory performance with an honorable discharge in the grade of second lieutenant.

On 19 October 2004, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request for upgrade of his discharge stating his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.



He served 5 years, 9 months and 10 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states on 14 June 2002, the Show Cause Authority (SCA) initiated discharge action against the applicant under AFI 36-3206, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, for failure to show acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer in his grade and a record of marginal service over an extended period of time as shown by his OPRs covering two or more jobs and prepared by at least two different supervisors.  On 14 June 2002, he acknowledged receipt and submitted a voluntary resignation instead of undergoing further administrative discharge proceedings.  On 31 July 2002, AFMC/CV recommended he receive an honorable discharge.  The discharge was reviewed by AF/JA prior to being forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAFPC).  SAFPC directed he be discharged for unsatisfactory performance with an honorable service characterization.  He has not presented any evidence of an error or injustice during the processing of his discharge.

The complete DPSOS 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 2 July 2009 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (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 to warrant changing his narrative reason for separation.  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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 an 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 the application.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2009-00566 in Executive Session on 13 August 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 February 2009, w/atchs. 
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 23 June 2009.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 July 2009.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair

3