AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03333 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING:  NO 

The  applicant  requests  that  his  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of 
Release or Discharge From Active Duty, be changed to remove the 
"Unsatisfactory  Performance1' narrative  reason  for  separation. 
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request 
and provided an advisory opinions to the Board recommending the 
application be  denied  (Exhibit C).  The advisory opinions were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response  (Exhibit D). 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 
After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the 
available  evidence of  record, we  find  insufficient evidence  of 
error or injustice to warrant corrective action.  The facts and 
opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be  based  on 
the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. 
Absent persuasive  evidence applicant was denied rights to which 
entitled,  appropriate  regulations  were  noc  followed,  or 
appropriate  standards  were  not  applied,  we  find  no  basis  to 
disturb the existing record.  Accordingly, applicant's request is 
denied. 

The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. 
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and 
will only be  reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 
Members of the Board Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Mr. Henry Romo Jr. , 
and  Dr.  Gerald  B.  Kauvar  considered  this  application  on 
17 November 1998 in 
Instruction 36-2603, 

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinions 
D.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 

7 January 1998 
97-03333 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  BCMR Medical Consultant 

1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3rd Floor 
Andrews AFB MD  20762-7002 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

Applicant's entire case file has been reviewed and is forwarded with the fallowing 

findings, conclusions and recommendations. 

REQUESTED ACTION:  The applicant was administratively discharged under 

provisions of AFI 36-3208 for Unsatisfactory Performance in failing his 5-level career 
development  end-of-course examinations twice {May and September 1976).  He states 
that he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) during his service time, and 
that this was the reason for his failed examinations.  He appeals for a change in reason 
for his discharge that will allow him to utilize education benew he feels he is entitled to 
receive. 

FACTS: The applicant failed his end-of-course examinations as noted above, in spite 

of concerted efforts on the part of his unit to ensure successful testing.  Upon the 
second failure, bis commander reviewed his options, and chose to recommend 
separation rather than continued expenditure of effort that likely would not have proved 
beneficial to the applicant in passing these examinations.  The letter of notification 
specifically states the Unsatisfactory Performance as the basis for discharge, so the 
applicant, who acknowledged receipt and also signed the DD Form 214 which listed this 
reason, was not uninformed as to the reason for discharge as he claims. 

A complete review of available medical records from the applicant's service years 

fails to disclose any reference to a diagnosis of ADD either during his active duty time or 
preceding his enlistment.  The only significant entries noted refer to alcohol rehabilitation 
the applicant underwent while on assignment to Misawa and which was accomplished in 
a residence facility in Korea.  Aside from this, the medical records disclose no other 
significant information. 

DISCUSSION:  No evidence is submitted that substantiates the applicant's 

contention that he suffered from ADD during his time in service.  Nor is there evidence 
of record that shows he was given an option of an early separation to attend college as 
he claims.  Rather, his case was properly handled from an administrative standpoint, 
and no error or injustice is found that would justify a change in his records.  He was 
afforded ample opportunity to pass his required examinations and simply failed in that 
effort. 

9703333 

T

-

a 

 

RECOMMENDATION:  The BCMR Medical  Consultant is of the opinion that no 

change in the records is warranted and the applica ion should be denied. 

f 

/ 

MDERICK 
Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR 
Medical Advisor SAF Personnel Council 

W. HORNICK, COI., USAF, MC, FS 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUMFOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPRS 

550 C Street West, Suite 11 
Randolph AFB TX 78350-4713 

The applicant, while serving on active duty in&  grade of airman first class, was 

discharged uder the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Unsatisfactory Performance) and received an 
honorable discharge.  He had 02 years 02 months and 29 days total active service. 

Requested Action.  The applicant is  requesting that his DD Fom 214 item 28 be changed 

to remove the “unsatisfactory performance” entry.  Applicant states this entry is causing him to 
not receive his education benefits.  In his application, there is a claim that he was diagnosed as 
having “Attention Deficit Disorder.” The advisory fiunished by the AziBCMR Medical 
Consultant, 07 Jan 98 addressed the applicant’s medical condition ant the time of his discharge, 
This advisory will address only the discharge processing in the case. 

Facts. Applicant was notified by his commander on 16 Dec 96 his intent to initiate 

involuntary administrative separation action against him under AFI 36-3208 for Mure to progress 
in on-the-job training.  The commander indicated that his reasons for recommending discharge  a 
were because on 3 1 M a y  96, he failed the course exam which was his required CDC, for which he 
would be allowed to retest.  On 23 Sep 96, he fded the course exam which was required for his 
CDC, for which his enrollment was terminated. He was advised he had a right to consuft counsel 
and the right to submit a statement in his own behalf.  Applicant did consult counsel but, waived 
his right to submit a statement in his own behalf. The case was reviewed by the base legal office 
and was found to be legally sufficient to support discharge.  The discharge authority reviewed the 
case and on 06 Jan 97, directed the applicant be discharged for unsatisfactory performance and be 
fUrnished an honorable discharge.  Applicant r 4 v d  notification of the final action on his 
discharge on 09 Jan 97, and indicated he understood the separation authority’s action on his 
administrative discharge. 

Discussion, This case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no errors 
or irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant.  The reason for discharge is appropriate and 
complies with diredve in effect at the time of his discharge.  The records indicate member’s 
military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. 

Conclusion and Recommendation,  Applicant did not idat.$  any specific errors in the 

discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in the reason for discharge he 
received, Accordingly, we recommend applicant’s request be denied.  He has filed a timely 
request. 

’ 

J O m  C. WOOTEN, GS-9, DAFC 
Separations Branch 
Dir of Personnel Program Mgt