RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00906
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00; 108.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect that he  was  discharged  for
disability rather than “unsatisfactory performance,” so that  he  can
qualify for benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He suffered an injury in an automobile accident while still on active
duty and was told at the time of his discharge that he could file for
disability.  However, he was not advised that he could have filed his
claim when the accident occurred.  He is  now  receiving  10  percent
disability through the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 28 Mar 01 on  a
six-year enlistment in the grade of airman first class (E-3).   On  2
Jun 03, the applicant’s squadron commander recommended  to  the  Base
Education and Training Manager that the applicant be administratively
discharged for a second unsatisfactory  course  exam  result  in  his
career development course.  On 22 Jul  03,  the  Base  Education  and
Training Manager concurred with the commander’s recommendation.  On 5
Aug 03, the squadron commander notified the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending  his  discharge  from  the  Air   Force   with   service
characterized as honorable for  failure  to  progress  in  on-the-job
training (OJT).  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the  discharge
notification on 11 Aug 03, consulted counsel, and waived his right to
submit statements.  On 13 Aug 03, the staff judge advocate found  the
discharge  action  against  the  applicant  legally  sufficient   and
recommended that  the  applicant  be  discharged  with  an  honorable
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  On 20  Aug  03,  the
wing commander directed that the applicant be discharged with service
characterized as honorable without probation and rehabilitation.  The
applicant was medically cleared for discharge and was  discharged  on
26 Aug 03.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change the
reason for his discharge.  Based on the documentation on file in  the
master personnel records,  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge  regulation.
The applicant did not submit  any  evidence  or  identify  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAT evaluated the applicant’s request for benefits  under  the
MGIB or refund of his contributions.  They  make  no  recommendation.
In order  for  the  applicant  to  qualify  for  MGIB  benefits,  the
applicant’s discharge reason  must  be  hardship,  service  connected
disability,  disability  existing  prior  to  entering  active  duty,
physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or  reduction
in force.  The  applicant’s  contribution  to  the  MGIB  was  a  pay
reduction of $100.00 per  month,  not  a  pay  deduction.   After  12
months,  the  Department  of   Defense   pays   the   $1200.00   MGIB
contribution.  It is not permitted by law to refund any of this money
to the applicant.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant
on 14 May 04 for review and comment  within  30  days.   To  date,  a
response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  Although the applicant may have
had a medical condition while on active duty, it was not  the  reason
that he was discharged.  The applicant has not  presented  sufficient
evidence that he had an  unfitting  medical  condition  and  that  he
should have been processed through the disability evaluation  system.
Had he not  been  discharged  for  “unsatisfactory  performance,”  it
appears that he would have been retained on active duty.   Therefore,
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 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 Docket Number  BC-2004-
00906 in Executive Session on 21 July 2004, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Apr 04.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 5 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 04.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair