RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04664 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to reflect “Convenience of the Government,” rather than “Unsatisfactory Performance,” so she may be eligible for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force could have retrained her in a different career field. She paid into the MGIB, but cannot use her benefits. In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 and documentation from her congressional inquiry related to the matter under review. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 26 May 94, the applicant contracted her enlistment in the Regular Air Force. She was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class, effective and with a date of rank of 26 Mar 95. On 8 Jun 94, the applicant signed DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB), acknowledging she understood she had to complete 36 months of active service for entitlement MGIB benefits. On 9 Apr 97, the applicant’s commander notified her that she was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance. The specific reasons for the discharge action were: a. On or about 22 Jul 96, the applicant scored 60 percent on her Career Development Course (CDC) End of Course Exam. The minimum passing score was 65 percent. b. On or about 5 Sep 96, the applicant scored 54 percent on her CDC End of Course Exam. The minimum passing score was 65 percent. On 9 Apr 97, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification letter. On 24 Apr 97, a legal review was conducted and the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient to support separation and recommended she be given an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 29 Apr 97, the discharge authority directed an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. The applicant was honorably discharged on 30 Apr 97. She served 2 years, 11 months, and 4 days of active service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant was counseled and afforded ample opportunity to overcome her deficiencies. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant's military personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOS found no error or injustice in the processing of the discharge, to include the narrative reason for separation. The applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any errors or injustices in the processing of her discharge. She did not provide any evidence to warrant a change in her narrative reason for separation. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSI recommends denial. DPSI states that active duty members enroll in the MGIB and pay $100 per month for 12 months; and are entitled to receive monthly education benefits once they have completed a minimum service obligation of 36 months. However, the applicant did not complete her initial service obligation of 36 months and there were no errors or injustices in the processing of her discharge. Furthermore, she has not provided any facts to warrant award of the MGIB benefits. The complete AFPC/DPSI evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states she was never allowed access to any counsel until after her hearing had been conducted. She was not given the opportunity to state her case. She never received notice about the date or time of the hearing. She did not receive a copy of the judgment for her records. Counsel informed her she would be entitled to receive all veterans benefits, to include the Montgomery GI Bill. Her original DD Form 214 reflected the reason for separations as failure to progress, not unsatisfactory performance. In addition, the parties responsible for the decision to separate her instead of allowing her to cross train were not aware of the whole situation and relied on the biased opinions of their predecessors. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ 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. The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed, to include her rebuttal response, and her contentions were duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. Therefore, we agree with the recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence that appropriate directives were not followed, appropriate standards were not applied, or the applicant was denied rights to which she was entitled, 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-2010-04664 in Executive Session on 16 Aug 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Oct 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 25 May 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSI, dated 6 Jun 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jun 11. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jul 11. Panel Chair