RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03807
            INDEX CODE:  110.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of separation of 16 May 1992 be changed to a later date which
would entitle him to the Montgomery GI Bill.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

What he can’t understand is how can someone serving in the  Gulf  War,
obtaining  such  awards  and  medals  as  the  Good   Conduct   Medal,
Humanitarian Award, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, National Defense
Medal, and four other Gulf War medals not be able to have  educational
benefits due him.  He states since he has gotten out of  the  military
he has had nothing but problems getting jobs because of  his  DD  214.
His resume looks like a map.  That’s why he  is  after  a  career  and
without a degree it is virtually impossible.  He further  states  that
he did not ask anything of the military when he was in; all  he  wants
now is to continue his education, please.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 May 1989, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for  a
period of 4 years.

Applicant failed to satisfactorily progress  in  on-the-job  training.
Specifically, on 3 February 1992, he failed to receive a passing score
on his end of course exam.  He failed this exam even though  the  unit
provided him with two hours of supervised study  time  each  duty  day
between 19 June 1991 and 6 January 1992 to prepare for the  exam.   In
addition, on 5 June 1991, applicant failed to receive a passing  score
on his end  of  course  exam.   This  resulted  in  a  counseling  and
commander’s evaluation dated  19 June 1991.

On 14 April 1992, the applicant was notified  by  his  commander  that
involuntary separation action  had  been  initiated  against  him  for
failure to progress in on-the-job training.  The action was  based  on
the applicant’s second failure of his end of course examination  on  3
February 1992.  This first failure was on 5 June 1991.   Two  failures
are the  number  required  for  discharge.   The  applicant  consulted
military legal counsel and submitted a statement in  his  own  behalf.
The  commander  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  for
unsatisfactory  performance  with  an  honorable   discharge   without
offering probation  and  rehabilitation.   The  staff  judge  advocate
reviewed the case and found it to be legally sufficient to support  an
honorable discharge without  offering  probation  and  rehabilitation.
After review, the discharge authority directed an honorable  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.

Applicant was honorably discharged on 16 May 1992 under the provisions
of AFR 39-10 (Unsatisfactory Performance) with an honorable discharge.
 He served 2 years, 11 months and 17 days of total active service.  He
was issued an RE code of “2C” (involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10
with an  honorable  discharge;  or,  entry  level  separation  without
characterization of service.)

While performing duty as an Apprentice Food  Service  Specialist,  the
applicant received three  Enlisted  Performance  Reports  (EPRs)  with
Promotion Recommendations of 4, 3, and 4.

He had no lost  time  while  in  service  and  earned  the  Air  Force
Outstanding Unit Award, Air Force Good Conduct Medal, National Defense
Service Medal and the Humanitarian Service Medal.

The applicant previously submitted an application  to  the  Air  Force
Board for correction  of  Military  Records  (AFBCMR)  requesting  his
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed so he could go into  the
Reserves or reenlist; or in the alternative, his RE code be  reworded.
On 19 October 1996, the Board considered his application and found  no
basis upon which to recommend a change in the RE  code  issue  at  the
time of his separation.  However,  the  Board  did  believe  that  the
reason given for his separation was unduly harsh, and therefore, based
on his overall  record,  recommended  the  reason  for  separation  be
changed to miscellaneous reasons.  A complete copy of  the  Record  of
Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Education  and  Training  Division,   USAF/DPPE,   reviewed   the
application and states that Public Law 98-525, the  legislation  which
enacted the Montgomery GI Bill, requires that  individuals  who  first
became members of the Armed Forces, or who first entered  active  duty
after 30 June 1985, and are participants in the  Montgomery  GI  Bill,
must serve continuously on active duty for at least  three  years  and
separate with an honorable discharge.  Individuals who separate  early
are not entitled to benefits except if discharged  involuntarily,  for
service connected disability, for a hardship or a  reduction-in-force.
Applicant did receive an honorable  discharge  but  only  completed  2
years, 11 months and 19 days of active duty.  He needed 36  months  of
completed service for Montgomery GI Bill eligibility.  They  recommend
applicant be allow to complete an additional 11 days  of  active  duty
for eligibility for the Montgomery GI Bill.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed the application
and states that the applicant’s records do not support  award  of  the
Air Force Good Conduct Medal (he did not serve three years  on  Active
Duty), the Humanitarian Service Medal (there  were  no  operations  in
      for which the medal was awarded, and he spent his entire term of
service at          AFB, , or Gulf War medals (there is no  indication
he was in the Persian Gulf).  According to his  records,  and  without
documentation to substantiate  these  awards,  the  applicant  is  not
eligible for  or  entitled  to  anything  other  than  the  Air  Force
Outstanding Unit Award and National Defense Service Medal.  Therefore,
the Air Force Good Conduct Medal and Humanitarian Service  Medal  have
been deleted.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.
The  Military  Personnel  Management  Specialist  Separations  Branch,
AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  the  application  and  states  that  they  have
reviewed the applicant’s master  personnel  record  and  the  advisory
submitted  by  USAF/DPPE,  Education  and  Training  Division  with  a
recommendation to allow applicant to complete an additional 11 days of
active duty for eligibility for the Montgomery GI Bill.

They recommended a  denial  of  the  request.   They  state  that  the
applicant was involuntarily discharged for unsatisfactory performance.
 They note that AFR 39-10,  paragraphs  5-25  and  5-27,  states  that
airmen are not to be discharged for unsatisfactory performance without
first being counseled  about  the  deficiencies  giving  rise  to  the
discharge  action  and  afforded  an  opportunity  to  correct   these
deficiencies.  In this regard, the applicant  had  been  afforded  the
opportunity to correct his  performance.   They  state,  specifically,
applicant was counseled after his first exam failure and was  provided
two hours of supervised study time each duty day from  19  June  1991,
until he retested on 6 January 1992.  They state, as  pointed  out  by
the USAF/DPPE memo dated 11 May 1998, Public Law  98-525  requires  an
individual to serve a minimum of 36 months continuous active  duty  to
be eligible for the GI  Bill.   They  do  not  support  an  action  to
circumvent the intent of the law by allowing the applicant  to  return
to active, serve 11 days active duty for an  entitlement  he  did  not
earn.   They  again  state  that  the  applicant   was   involuntarily
discharged and had no choice as to the date he was released  from  the
Air Force which was 11 days short of being eligible for the GI Bill.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he was
given the impression that  he  met  eligibility  requirements  by  the
Education Office at       in     .  According to their records, he was
separated involuntarily under an honorable discharge.  He  states  his
supervisor informed him that because of cutbacks, the  military  could
not afford to retest him.  He states, previously,  they  had  retested
other members of his squadron, but were financially unable to continue
this  process.   He  further  states  that  before  he  was   formally
discharged, he was advised by the personnel department  in  transition
assistance that he had indeed fulfilled all of his obligations and was
able to receive educational assistance.

Regarding the discrepancy  on  medals  he  was  awarded,  he  has  the
following to disseminate:  the Humanitarian Award  was  given  to  the
363d squadron for participating in  the  relief  effort  of  Hurricane
Hugo.  Because of his participation in the  Gulf  War,  the  363d  was
notified that its airmen had received three war related medals.  These
were listed on his DD 214 at the time of discharge.  In  closing,  his
only request is the opportunity to pursue a college education.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit H.

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 probable error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s  records
are in error or that he has been the  victim  of  an  injustice.   The
advisory from the Education and Training Division recommends  allowing
the applicant to complete an additional 11 days  of  active  duty  for
eligibility for  the  Montgomery  GI  Bill.   The  advisory  from  the
Separations Branch states that  they  do  not  support  an  action  to
circumvent the intent of the law;  that  applicant’s  appeal  did  not
identify any error or injustice occurred in his separation; and,  that
applicant’s situation is not any different than  thousands  of  others
who signed up, contributed the required money but did not qualify  for
the GI Bill.  It is unfortunate that the applicant  did  not  complete
the  required  active  duty  service  to  be  eligible  for  education
benefits.  However, in the absence of  evidence  that  his  separation
from the Air Force on 16 May 1992 was in error or unjust, we  find  no
basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  material  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   this
application.

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 25 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                       Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
                       Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
                       Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
                       Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Record of Proceedings, dated 19 Jan 96, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ USAF/DPPE, dated 11 May 98.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 11 Jun 98.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Jun 98.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Aug 98.
      Exhibit H. Applicant’s Response, dated 19 Aug 98.




                             HENRY ROMO, JR.
                             Panel Chair