RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02308
                                  INDEX CODE 100.06, 110.01, 110.02
                                        COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) and Separation  Program  Designator  (SPD)
codes and separation date be changed.

[Note:  The separation date was administratively changed to  20 Jul  94,  as
requested.]

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  narrative  reason  for  discharge   (Unsatisfactory   Performance)   is
incorrect.  She twice failed her Career Development Course (CDC) test.   One
month after her discharge this narrative  reason  was  deemed  inappropriate
for her rank of airman and redesignated for staff sergeants and above.   Her
discharge date should be 20 Jul 94, not 20 Jul 93.   She  wants  to  qualify
for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 Mar 93, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  and  accepted
MGIB enrollment.  Following basic military training,  she  was  assigned  to
Wright-Patterson  AFB,  OH,  for  training  as  an  Information   Management
Specialist.

Although characterized  as  a  superior  enlisted  member  with  a  positive
attitude, the applicant failed to achieve a passing score on her CDC end-of-
course examination on 24 Feb and 14 Apr 94, and could  not  be  upgraded  to
the five-skill level for her career specialty.

On 7 Jun 94, she elected to accept separation from the Air Force in lieu  of
a waiver of discharge processing.

In a 23 Jul [sic] 94 letter, the supervisor explained  the  steps  taken  to
help the applicant pass her CDC.  The supervisor added  that,  although  the
applicant did not pass her end-of-course test, her on-the-job  qualification
and performance was excellent.

On 24 Jun 94,  the  commander  notified  the  applicant  of  his  intent  to
recommend  honorable  discharge  for  failure  to  progress  in   on-the-job
training (OJT).

On 27 Jun 94, after consulting counsel, the applicant waived her  option  to
submit statements.  The commander  subsequently  recommended  the  applicant
for an honorable discharge for unsatisfactory  performance.   Probation  and
rehabilitation (P&R) were not recommended.

Legal review found the case sufficient on 11 Jul 94 and, on 15 Jul  94,  the
discharge approved the recommended honorable discharge without P&R.

An AF Form 100,  dated  19  Jul  94,  indicated  the  applicant’s  effective
discharge date was to be 20 Jul 94.

On 20 Jul 94, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of  airman
after one year, four months and nine days of active service.   Her  SPD  was
JHJ (Unsatisfactory Performance) and  her  RE  code  was  2C  (Involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge).

Although the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflected her correct amount of  active
duty service, it listed her discharge date as 20 Jul  93,  rather  than  94.
As a result, on  6  Jan  95,  HQ  AFMPC/DPMDOA  advised  the  applicant  her
separation  document  had  been  administratively  corrected  to  reflect  a
separation date of 20 Jul 94, rather than 20 Jul 93.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAE notes the 6 Jan 95  administrative  correction  regarding  the
separation date.  They recommended against changing the RE code as there  is
no error in the applicant’s records.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPRSP believes the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within  the
discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant has  not  substantiated  any
errors or injustices and her appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPAT advises that DOD records indicate the applicant accepted  MGIB
enrollment on 12 Mar 93.  The applicant is not  eligible  for  MGIB  because
she completed less than a full term of service.  The Department of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA) may award MGIB education benefits  to  individuals  who  leave
active duty prior to completing a fully term of service  if  the  individual
was  separated  for  hardship,  service-connected   disability,   disability
existing prior to entering active duty, physical or  mental  condition  that
interferes with duty, or reduction in force.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 8 Oct 04 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

______________________________________________________________

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 waive the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice.  The  applicant’s  separation  date  was
administratively changed as requested to 20 Jul 94.  Therefore, the SPD  and
RE codes are the only issues requiring  our  consideration.   The  applicant
appears to have been an exemplary enlisted member,  but  because  she  twice
failed to pass her CDC tests, she could not be upgraded  to  the  five-skill
level for her career specialty.  However, in lieu of a waiver  of  discharge
processing, the applicant elected  separation.   At  the  time  members  are
separated  from  the  Air  Force,  they  are  furnished  SPD  and  RE  codes
predicated upon the quality of their  service  and  circumstances  of  their
separation.  The applicant’s RE and SPD codes reflect  she  failed  to  pass
her CDC exams and  was  separated  with  an  honorable  characterization  of
service.   As  the   applicant   has   provided   no   persuasive   evidence
demonstrating these separation codes are in error,  we  find  no  compelling
basis on which to recommend approval.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 18 November 2004 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-
02308 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Sep 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Sep 04.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 3 Oct 04.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.




                                             RICHARD A. PETTERSON
                                             Panel Chair