Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00983
Original file (BC-2008-00983.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00983
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  narrative  reason  for  separation  (Unsatisfactory  Performance)   and
separation code (JHJ) be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believes the  separation  code  and  narrative  reason  are  unjustified
because she only spent one year and 10 months in the Air Force.   Separating
members from the service  without  giving  them  a  chance  to  progress  is
unreasonable.  Based on this code,  she  is  ineligible  to  enlist  in  the
United States Army for a period of 24 months in  accordance  with  the  Army
regulation.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 October 2005 in the  grade
of airman basic.  She was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  airman
first class having assumed that grade effective and with a date of  rank  of
6 February 2006.

On 17 August 2007, she was notified  by  her  commander  of  his  intent  to
recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions  of
AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.26.3.,  Unsatisfactory  Performance  -  Failure  to
Progress in On-The-Job-Training.  The reason for this action was that  on  2
August  2007,  she  failed  her  Career  Development  Course,  end-of-course
retest.  She was advised of her rights in this matter, acknowledged  receipt
of the notification on that same date, and  after  consulting  with  counsel
elected not to submit statements on her own behalf.

In a legal review of the case file, the acting staff  judge  advocate  found
the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge.  On 21  August  2007,
the discharge authority concurred  with  the  recommendations  and  directed
discharge with an honorable discharge without probation and  rehabilitation.
 She was discharged on 22 August 2007.  She served 1 year, 10 months and  11
days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  DPSOA states they found no evidence of  error
or injustice, nor did the applicant submit any evidence in  support  of  her
claim.  The  RE  code  for  such  a  characterization  as  directed  by  the
commander is 2C.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial.  DPSOS states the applicant contends  she  was
not afforded ample time to progress in  training.   However,  the  discharge
package does  not  support  this  contention.   The  applicant's  on-the-job
training  record  is  well  documented  as  to  the  efforts  taken  by  her
supervisor and commander to include supervised study sessions.

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 was within the discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did  not  submit  any  evidence  or  identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 9 May 2008, the evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  for  review
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  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.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record,  it  is  our  opinion  that  given  the  circumstances
surrounding her separation from the Air  Force,  the  narrative  reason  for
separation and separation code assigned were proper and in  compliance  with
the appropriate instructions.  Therefore, we agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendations of the Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and
adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that  the  applicant
has not been the victim of either an error or injustice.  In the absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2008-
00983 in Executive Session on 25 June 2008, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara J. Barger, Member
                 Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 February 2008.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 21 March 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 30 April 2008
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 2008.



                 JOSEPH D. YOUNT
                 Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00918

    Original file (BC-2008-00918.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    No evidence of error or injustice was found in the master personnel records or submitted by the applicant. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ THE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01562

    Original file (BC-2008-01562.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 Jan 91, his commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance. On 1 Feb 91, the legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge without probation and rehabilitation. AFPC/DPSOS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00418

    Original file (BC-2009-00418.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00418 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) and separation (SPD) codes be changed to waiverable codes that allows her to enlist in the military. DPSOS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01677

    Original file (BC-2008-01677.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 25 July 2008, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00752

    Original file (BC-2008-00752.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an Article 15 and while he was on leave his commander received a notice to separate airmen with bad records under the Force Shaping program. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA states the applicant was not serving suspended punishment under Article 15, UCMJ at the time of his release. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00932

    Original file (BC-2009-00932.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denying the applicant’s requests to change her separation code or narrative reason for separation. While she contends that she forgot about her pre- service medical conditions, the statement she signed while in BMT indicates that she did not disclose her medical conditions because she really wanted to join the Air Force and serve her country. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01916

    Original file (BC-2008-01916.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSOA states a review of the applicant's records reveals his commander recommended his discharge for erroneous enlistment. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of his request to change his narrative reason for separation. ______________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00351

    Original file (BC-2012-00351.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The four test failures were evidence of her lack of motivation. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While it is true she was counseled multiple times for her failures, she would like to make it clear that her academic deficiencies are not because of her lack of motivation. She failed this course, but it does not mean she would fail out of every course of study in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02291

    Original file (BC-2008-02291.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02291 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of “2C” which denotes "Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service" be changed. DPSOS states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02353

    Original file (BC-2012-02353.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02353 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Approved Honorable Involuntary Separation or Entry Level Separation) be changed to an RE code “1”. In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal statement and letters of recommendation. The complete...