RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02137
                 INDEX CODE:  110

                 COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation “Unsatisfactory  Performance,”  be
changed to reflect the more  specific  reason  for  separation,  i.e.,
“Development Test Course Failure.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When prospective employers see “Unsatisfactory Performance” on his  DD
Form 214, they are reluctant to hire him.  Applicant also states  that
he was supposed to receive separation pay and he never  received  this
pay.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 March  1996  for  a
period of six years in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

On 10 September 1996, the  applicant  was  notified  by  his  Squadron
Commander that he (commander) was recommending discharge from  the  U.
S. Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Chapter  5,  Section
E, paragraph 5.26.3 for Unsatisfactory Performance—Failure to Progress
in On-the-Job Training.  The reasons cited by the commander were:  (a)
 On or about 14 September 1995, applicant failed to  pass  his  Career
Development Course (CDC) test that  would  allow  him  to  obtain  his
required skill level.  The  minimum  passing  score  was  65  percent.
Applicant scored only 53 percent.  This constituted his  first  course
failure.  Applicant was placed on  a  detailed  training  program  and
given a training agenda to follow to help him prepare for  his  second
attempt at passing this course.  (b) On  or  about  2  November  1995,
applicant failed to pass his CDC test that would allow him  to  obtain
his required skill level.  The minimum passing score was  65  percent.
Applicant scored 64  percent.   This  constituted  applicant’s  second
course failure.  Applicant was  entered  into  a  Code  T  observation
period  and  an  aggressive   retraining   program.    The   commander
recommended that the applicant receive an honorable discharge.

On 10 September 1996, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Letter
of Notification, did not waive  his  right  to  a  hearing  before  an
administrative discharge  board  and,  did  not  waive  his  right  to
military counsel.

On 15 October 1996, applicant waived his right to a hearing before  an
administrative discharge board with the understanding  that  he  would
receive an honorable discharge.  Applicant consulted military counsel.


The Squadron Commander, on 16 October 1996, recommended the  applicant
be discharged for Unsatisfactory Performance—failure to Progress in On-
the-Job  Training.   He  recommended  an  honorable  discharge.    The
commander further stated that  he  did  not  recommend  probation  and
rehabilitation.  The applicant was given written training  agendas  to
follow and had been under close supervision to  monitor  his  training
progress.  The commander did not feel that a waiver of the requirement
for him to successfully complete the CDC was appropriate.  He also did
not believe that cross-training was appropriate.

On 16 October 1996, the Headquarters Human Systems Center (AFMC) Staff
Judge Advocate reviewed the applicant’s discharge case and found it to
be legally sufficient to support the  administrative  discharge  under
AFI 36-3206.   He  recommended  the  applicant  receive  an  honorable
discharge.

On 18 October 1996, the discharge  authority,  Headquarters  70th  Air
Base Group, directed that the applicant be discharged and furnished an
honorable discharge.

On 22 October 1996, applicant submitted a “Request for  Withdrawal  of
Board Waiver” to the discharge authority stating that at the  time  he
submitted  his  waiver,  he  was  not  informed  that   one   of   the
ramifications of a waiver and  subsequent  discharge  under  paragraph
5.26.3 was no separation  pay.   Applicant  stated  that  it  was  his
understanding that his 13 years of service coupled with  an  honorable
discharge would result in separation pay that he would  need  for  his
family.

The Discharge Authority, on 25 October 1996, stated that  he  received
applicant’s request for withdrawal of board waiver  and,  pursuant  to
his power under AFI 36-3208, Chapter 6,  Section  D,  paragraph  6.27,
decided to deny the applicant’s request.  The commander stated that in
the Notification Memorandum the applicant  received  on  10  September
1996, he (applicant) was informed that  a  copy  of  AFI  36-3208  was
available to him and that he was to consult  legal  counsel  prior  to
specifying the rights he chose to exercise.  He had 7 workdays to meet
with legal counsel, review the applicable AFI, and ask  any  questions
concerning separation pay.  He was instructed by his First Sergeant to
contact his military personnel flight (MPF) with any questions but  he
(applicant) never went.  The commander stated that the  applicant  met
with counsel and had the opportunity to ask questions about  severance
pay prior to waiving his right to an administrative  discharge  board.
The applicant chose to waive his right  to  a  discharge  board.   The
commander stated that he did not find the  reasons  for  requesting  a
withdrawal of the board waiver to  be  sufficient  in  this  case  and
denied the applicant’s request.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 30 October  1996  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Unsatisfactory Performance).  He served  14
years, 3 months and 12 days of active duty.  He was  not  entitled  to
separation pay.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  denied  applicant’s
request for a change in the narrative reason for separation on 16 July
1998.  In accordance with policy, the  application  was  forwarded  to
this Board for further consideration.

A copy of the AFDRB brief is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFDRB Brief was forwarded to the  applicant  and  his  counsel  on
6 August and 23 September 1998 for review and response within 30 days.
 As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  It appears that responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting  the  applicant’s
separation, and we do not  find  persuasive  evidence  that  pertinent
regulations were violated or that the applicant was not  afforded  all
the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  We  note  that
the reason for separation was that the applicant failed to progress in
On-the-Job Training by twice failing  his  Career  Development  Course
(CDC) test that would have required him to obtain his  required  skill
level.  By regulation, Unsatisfactory Performance is  the  appropriate
narrative  reason  for  separation.   However,  after  reviewing   the
applicant’s records and noting his contention that  that  he  believes
the narrative reason for separation makes  it  somewhat  difficult  to
obtain a decent job, we believe the narrative  reason  for  separation
may indicate something derogatory to future employers.  The  applicant
did serve honorably for over 14 years and  we  feel  it  would  be  an
injustice for him to carry what could be  perceived  as  a  derogatory
separation.   Accordingly,  we  find   that   corrective   action   is
appropriate as a matter of equity and on the basis  of  clemency,  and
recommend his records be corrected as indicated below.

4.  Applicant’s contention requesting separation pay  is  duly  noted;
however, whether or not he met an Administrative Discharge Board,  the
narrative reason for separation is what determined whether he received
separation pay.  In applicant’s case, the recommended  change  of  the
narrative reason also does not entitle him to  separation  pay.   This
Board’s only reason for changing the narrative reason is because  they
believed the cited reason of unsatisfactory performance was too  harsh
in view of his overall  service.   Therefore,  the  applicant  is  not
entitled to separation pay.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 30  October  1996,
he was honorably  discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208
(Miscellaneous -General Reasons) and  assigned  a  separation  program
designator (SPD) code of KND.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 11 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
              Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 97, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Brief of Examiner, dated 16 Jul 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 6 Aug & 23 Sep 98.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 98-02137




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to, be corrected to show that on 30 October 1996, he
was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208
(Miscellaneous  - General Reasons) and assigned a separation program
designator (SPD) code of KND.







   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency