Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02888
Original file (BC-2005-02888.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02888
      INDEX CODE:  110.02
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  21 JANUARY 2007

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason  for  separation  of  “unsatisfactory  performance”  be
changed.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the narrative reason is incorrect because he was not  discharged
for disciplinary reasons.  He was  discharged  due  to  failing  his  Career
Development Course (CDC) twice.  He was not given the option of a waiver  or
reclassification.

In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant  submits  his  separation
document (DD 214) and his  personal  statement.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 October 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Air  Force  Reserve  under
the Delayed Entry/Enlistment Program (DEP) at the age of 18 in the grade  of
airman basic (E-1) for a period of eight  years.   On  23  August  2001,  he
enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 19 in the  grade  of  airman
basic (E-1) for a period of 4 years.  After completing  basic  military  and
technical  training,  he  was  assigned  to  duties  as  a  Security  Forces
Apprentice.

During a meeting held on 16 March 2004, the commander briefed  the  two-time
CDC failure by the applicant.  He noted  his  lack  of  effort  towards  the
Security Forces career field; as well as, his lack of preparation  for  both
CDC exams.  He indicated that given the seriousness of the  Security  Forces
mission during the war on  terrorism  and  base  protection,  the  applicant
would be separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208.

On 17  May  2004,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending he be separated from the Air  Force  under  the  provisions  of
AFPD-36-32 and AFI 36-3208 because of unsatisfactory performance  –  failure
to progress in on-the-job-training (OJT).  The applicant was advised of  his
rights.  He  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  and  submitted  a
statement  on  his  own  behalf.   The  commander  thereafter  initiated   a
recommendation for the applicant’s separation.

On 28 May 2004, the discharge  authority  directed  that  the  applicant  be
separated with an honorable discharge without probation and  rehabilitation.


On 14 June 2004, he  was  honorably  discharged  because  of  unsatisfactory
performance.  He had served 2 years, 9 months and 22 days on active duty  to
include 2 years, 4 months and 5 days of foreign service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   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, and the discharge was within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  DPPRS concludes  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing, and did not provide any facts warranting a  change  to
his reenlistment eligibility code.  DPPRS 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  3
October 2005 for review and comment.  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  error  or  injustice.   Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the  victim
of an error or injustice.  At the time members are separated  from  the  Air
Force, they are furnished a narrative reason for separation predicated  upon
the quality of their service and circumstances  of  their  separation.   The
applicant was discharged due to unsatisfactory performance  because  of  his
failure to progress in on-the-job training.  Before his commander  initiated
discharge proceedings, he initiated a wide-range of  rehabilitative  efforts
in an attempt to help the former member  complete  his  CDCs.   However,  he
states the applicant squandered the opportunities presented and displayed  a
complete lack of motivation and  professionalism  to  adhere  to  Air  Force
standards.  Therefore, after a thorough review of the  evidence  of  record,
we  believe  that  given  the  circumstances  surrounding  the   applicant’s
separation, the narrative reason for separation  issued  was  in  accordance
with the  appropriate  directives  and  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

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 4 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Panel Member
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Panel Member


The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  Docket
Number BC-2005-02888:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Sep 05 w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Oct 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Oct 04.




            THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
            Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02294

    Original file (BC-2006-02294.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). Although the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge and RE code she received were accurate, we believe she should be provided the opportunity to apply for enlistment in the armed services. MICHAEL V. BARBINO Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2004-02294 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02214

    Original file (BC-2003-02214.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 May 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied his request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and his RE Code and reason and authority for discharge be changed. The AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: He will always have a mark against him as long as his records remain unchanged. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01317

    Original file (BC-2005-01317.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 01317 INDEX CODE: 100.06, 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 OCTOBER 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from “3A” to “1” to permit reentry into the military without a waiver. On 15 Jan 05, applicant was honorably released from...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03906

    Original file (BC-2004-03906.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. Applicant was honorably discharged on 6 Nov 03, in the grade of airman (E-2), under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, by reason of unsatisfactory performance. Applicant’s response to Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03087

    Original file (BC-2004-03087.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03087 INDEX CODE: 112.10 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 2C (involuntary separation with honorable discharge) and his narrative reason for separation be changed to enable him to enter the Army. On 28 July 2004, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00458

    Original file (BC-2004-00458.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00458 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 & A49.01 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge for “Unsatisfactory Performance” be changed to “Medical Reasons.” _________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His reason for discharge...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03000

    Original file (BC-2002-03000.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    She served 2 years, 2 months and 13 days of active service. The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAE stated that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C, “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” is correct. However, after reviewing the applicant’s records, the Board believes the narrative reason for separation and her current RE code are somewhat harsh.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00421

    Original file (BC-2005-00421.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 11 May 04, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) reviewed all of the evidence of record and concluded that the applicant’s discharge should be changed to an honorable discharge. On 28 May 2004, applicant’s record was administratively corrected to reflect an honorable discharge, with a corresponding RE code of 2C (Exhibit B). Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 05.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02417

    Original file (BC-2005-02417.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005- 02417 INDEX CODE: 100.00, 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 FEBRUARY 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be upgraded. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02211

    Original file (BC-2005-02211.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was separated from the Air Force and given an entry-level separation. On 29 January 1998, the applicant was involuntarily discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (entry-level performance and conduct) with service uncharacterized and a 2C reenlistment eligibility (RE) code. He provided no facts warranting a change to his character of service or his...