RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04664 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed 
to reflect “Convenience of the Government,” rather than 
“Unsatisfactory Performance,” so she may be eligible for 
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Air Force could have retrained her in a different career 
field. She paid into the MGIB, but cannot use her benefits. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her 
DD Form 214 and documentation from her congressional inquiry 
related to the matter under review. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 26 May 94, the applicant contracted her enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force. She was progressively promoted to the grade 
of airman first class, effective and with a date of rank of 
26 Mar 95. 

 

On 8 Jun 94, the applicant signed DD Form 2366, Montgomery GI 
Bill Act of 1984 (MGIB), acknowledging she understood she had to 
complete 36 months of active service for entitlement MGIB 
benefits. 

 

On 9 Apr 97, the applicant’s commander notified her that she was 
recommending her discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory 
performance. The specific reasons for the discharge action were: 

 

a. On or about 22 Jul 96, the applicant scored 60 percent 
on her Career Development Course (CDC) End of Course Exam. The 
minimum passing score was 65 percent. 


b. On or about 5 Sep 96, the applicant scored 54 percent on 
her CDC End of Course Exam. The minimum passing score was 
65 percent. 

 

On 9 Apr 97, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification letter. 

 

On 24 Apr 97, a legal review was conducted and the staff judge 
advocate found the case legally sufficient to support separation 
and recommended she be given an honorable discharge without 
probation and rehabilitation. 

 

On 29 Apr 97, the discharge authority directed an honorable 
discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 

 

The applicant was honorably discharged on 30 Apr 97. She served 
2 years, 11 months, and 4 days of active service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant was 
counseled and afforded ample opportunity to overcome her 
deficiencies. Based on the documentation on file in the 
applicant's military personnel records, the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. DPSOS found no error or injustice in the 
processing of the discharge, to include the narrative reason for 
separation. The applicant has not submitted any evidence or 
identified any errors or injustices in the processing of her 
discharge. She did not provide any evidence to warrant a change 
in her narrative reason for separation. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSI recommends denial. DPSI states that active duty 
members enroll in the MGIB and pay $100 per month for 12 months; 
and are entitled to receive monthly education benefits once they 
have completed a minimum service obligation of 36 months. 
However, the applicant did not complete her initial service 
obligation of 36 months and there were no errors or injustices in 
the processing of her discharge. Furthermore, she has not 
provided any facts to warrant award of the MGIB benefits. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSI evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states she was never allowed access to any counsel 
until after her hearing had been conducted. She was not given 
the opportunity to state her case. She never received notice 
about the date or time of the hearing. She did not receive a 
copy of the judgment for her records. Counsel informed her she 
would be entitled to receive all veterans benefits, to include 
the Montgomery GI Bill. Her original DD Form 214 reflected the 
reason for separations as failure to progress, not unsatisfactory 
performance. In addition, the parties responsible for the 
decision to separate her instead of allowing her to cross train 
were not aware of the whole situation and relied on the biased 
opinions of their predecessors. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The 
applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed, to 
include her rebuttal response, and her contentions were duly 
noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and 
the documentation presented in support of her appeal sufficiently 
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility. Therefore, we agree with the 
recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale 
as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain 
her burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. 
Therefore, absent persuasive evidence that appropriate directives 
were not followed, appropriate standards were not applied, or the 
applicant was denied rights to which she was entitled, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2010-04664 in Executive Session on 16 Aug 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Oct 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 25 May 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSI, dated 6 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jul 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair