Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04108
Original file (BC-2011-04108.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04108 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His narrative reason for separation, “marginal performer 
assigned to organizational unit,” be changed to not reflect him 
as a marginal performer. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He failed his upgrade test and does not think he should be 
labeled as a marginal performer. In 2009, when he was 
considered for promotion he was told he could not be promoted 
because of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty. He should not continue to be punished for his 
childhood infractions. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 July 1980. 
On 1 July 1982 he was notified of his commander’s intent to 
discharge him from the Air Force for marginal performance. 
Specifically, his presence created an administrative burden to 
the organization due to minor military and disciplinary 
infractions. He received a 7 on his Airman Performance rating, 
he was late for work, he disappeared from his duty section and 
he was in possession of marijuana. The applicant acknowledged 
his commander’s intent and noted that he did not wish to be 
retained in the Air Force. He spoke with defense counsel, 
however, he did not submit matters on his behalf. On 20 July 
1982, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally 
sufficient. On 21 July 1982, the commander approved the 
discharge. 

 


He was honorably discharged on 26 July 1982. His narrative 
reason for separation was listed as marginal performer assigned 
to organizational unit. He was credited with 1 year, 11 months 
and 27 days of active duty service. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia provided a copy of an 
investigation report (Exhibit C). 

 

On 14 February 2012, the FBI investigation and a request for 
post-service information were forwarded to the applicant for 
response 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 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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred during the discharge process. Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. 
Based on the applicant’s stated request, it appears he believes 
he has a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 
However, his DD Form 214 clearly indicates his service was 
characterized as honorable. Regarding his narrative reason for 
separation, the applicant has provided no evidence, which would 
lead us to believe the narrative reason for separation was 
improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing 
regulation and we are not persuaded by the evidence before us it 
should be changed on the basis of clemency. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which 
to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-04108 in Executive Session on 27 March 2012, 
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 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. FBI Investigative Report. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Feb 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04348

    Original file (BC-2011-04348.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. On 7 March 2012, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about his post service activities and in response to the FBI Report (Exhibit D). Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04649

    Original file (BC-2011-04649.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03953

    Original file (BC-2011-03953.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03953 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 23 July 1984, the alcohol rehabilitation committee determined the applicant failed to complete rehabilitation due to his continued use of alcohol and misconduct. On 28...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00255A

    Original file (BC-2005-00255A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Article 15 action dated 4 December 1980. j. The applicant indicated she was separated from the service and given an honorable discharge at the convenience of the Air Force. On 3 March 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit H).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01885

    Original file (BC-2011-01885.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00198

    Original file (BC-2008-00198.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00198 INDEX CODE: 106.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 9 June 1983, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for a general discharge for misconduct – minor...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02339

    Original file (BC-2012-02339.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02339 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05330

    Original file (BC 2012 05330.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05330 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation, which reflects “Marginal Performer Assigned to Organizational Unit,” be changed. His personnel records indicate he requested that his shift commander write a letter concerning his incompetency as a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05057

    Original file (BC-2011-05057.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In May of 1983, he found a set of golf clubs after completing a round of golf. Specifically, the applicant received an Article 15, a Letter of Reprimand and eight Records of Counseling. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00839

    Original file (BC-2010-00839.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00839 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in...