RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00066
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 MAY 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect award  of  Montgomery  GI  Bill
(MGIB) benefits.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His security forces  commander  assured  him  that  he  would  have
educational benefits under the (MGIB).  However, when  he  applied,
he was denied.  He was discharged three  months  short  of  serving
three years.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  10  Oct  00  for  a
period of four years.  He was promoted to the grade of airman first
class with an effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 17  May  02.
He  received  two  enlisted  performance  reports  with   promotion
recommendation ratings of  four  (9  Jun  02)  and  two  (referral)
(28 Apr 03), respectively (on a scale of one to five).

On 1  May  03,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge  action  against   the   applicant   for   Unsatisfactory
Performance--Failure to Progress in On-the-Job Training (OJT).

The reasons for the proposed action were that  on  24  Sep  02  and
19 Nov 02, applicant failed to  make  satisfactory  progress  in  a
required on-the-job training  (OJT)  program.   The  applicant  was
eliminated from the Security  Forces  Career  Development  training
course for academic deficiency after  failing  the  end  of  course
examination twice with scores of 55% and 59%--minimum  passing  was
65%.  Prior to disenrollment, applicant  was  counseled  concerning
his  performance  and  received  individualized   assistance   with
negative results.

On 7 May  03,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  discharge
notification and after consulting  with  counsel  and  having  been
advised of his rights, submitted a statement in his own behalf.  On
9 Jun  03,  the  staff  judge  advocate  found  the  case   legally
sufficient and recommended an honorable discharge.   On  that  same
date, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge  action  and
directed  he  be  honorably  discharged  upon   medical   clearance
qualification.

On 25 Jun 03, applicant  was  honorably  discharged  by  reason  of
“Unsatisfactory Performance,” and was issued an RE code of 2C.   He
was credited with 2 years, 8 months, and 16  days  of  active  duty
service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAT addressed the applicant’s request for  Montgomery  GI
Bill (MGIB) benefits.  They state that the law provides benefits if
an individual separates with less than a full term of  service  for
hardship, service-connected disability, disability  existing  prior
to  entering  active  duty,  physical  or  mental  condition   that
interferes with duty, or reduction in force.

They provided no recommendation.   The  applicant’s  commander  may
have  misinformed  him  on  eligibility  requirements   for   MGIB.
However,  the  applicant’s  record  contains  a   DD   Form   2648,
Preseparation Counseling Checklist.  The applicant would have  been
referred to the local education office for MGIB counseling.  If, in
fact,  the  applicant  sought  preseparation  counseling  from  the
education office, a qualified counselor would have informed him  of
MGIB ineligibility based on  his  “for  cause”  discharge  and  not
completing a full term of service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 11 Feb 05 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.   Applicant’s
contention that his commander assured him that he  would  have  his
education benefits under the Montgomery  GI  Bill  is  duly  noted;
however, other than his own assertions he has provided no  evidence
to substantiate his claim.  We note applicant left active  duty  on
25 Jun 03 with  an  honorable  discharge  after  serving  2  years,
8 months, and 16 days.  The law provides for MGIB  benefits  if  an
individual separates with less than a  full  term  of  service  for
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
reason for discharge was “Unsatisfactory Performance.”   Therefore,
we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale  expressed
as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant  has  failed  to
sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.
 In the absence of persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-00066 in Executive  Session  on  26  May  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Dec 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAT, dated 18 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair