Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04733
Original file (BC-2011-04733.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04733 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His official records be corrected to change his Separation 
Program Designator (SPD) code of JHJ (Involuntary Separation) to 
reflect a voluntary separation. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

While in training for his 5-level, he requested withdrawal from 
the IC131 (Air Traffic Control) career field. He was given the 
option to request retraining, or separation. He requested 
separation, but he was never forced to withdraw from the 1C131 
career field or to separate. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Based on information in the applicant’s official military 
records, he enlisted in the Air Force on 28 Mar 06. 

 

On 22 Jan 08, the applicant’s supervisor recommended he be 
withdrawn from the 1C131 (Air Traffic Control (ATC)) career 
field for his inability to consistently apply the knowledge 
necessary to perform at required standards, stating that his 
lack of strategic awareness and poor decision making in the 
approach position resulted in his failure to progress. 

 

On 20 Aug 08, his commander suspended the applicant’s Air 
Traffic Control System Certificate pending review of withdrawal 
actions for “Failure to Obtain Rating.” 

 


The applicant acknowledged receipt, indicated he agreed with the 
action, acknowledged his right to legal counsel, and indicated 
his desire to submit a statement. 

 

After reviewing the applicant’s statement, his commander 
recommended his withdrawal for “Failing to Progress in Upgrade 
Training,” and did not recommend he be retained in the Air 
Force. 

 

On 31 Dec 08, the applicant was honorably discharged for 
Unsatisfactory Performance and was credited with two years, nine 
months, and three days of total active service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the office of the Air Force 
office of responsibility which is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence 
of error or injustice. There is insufficient evidence contained 
within the applicant’s military record to confirm the 
circumstances and facts surrounding the applicant’s discharge. 
Absent documentation, the presumption of regularity implies the 
applicant was afforded due process and the discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge instruction. The applicant submitted documents 
indicating he was having difficulty in training and some issues 
at home with his wife. Since the applicant requested to 
withdraw from the Air Traffic Control Program, he was 
involuntarily separated for failure to progress in on-the-job 
training. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify 
any errors of injustice in the discharge process. 

 

A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPSOS 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 23 Mar 12 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 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. 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 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
While we note the applicant’s contention that he requested 
withdrawal from the Air Traffic Control career field, his 
official records clearly reflect the reason for his elimination 
from upgrade training was “lack of situational awareness and 
poor decision making, which resulted in his failure to 
progress.” Subsequent to his failing upgrade training, his 
commander did not recommend him for retention in the Air Force. 
While personal issues may have factored into leadership’s 
decision to separate him, the fundamental basis for his 
separation was unsatisfactory performance, which resulted in his 
involuntary separation as reflected by the SPD code on his 
DD Form 214. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested 
relief. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-04733 in Executive Session on 5 Jun 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04733 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 7 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02001

    Original file (BC-2011-02001.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was honorably discharged effective 7 April 2010 for unsatisfactory performance with an RE code of “2C.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS and DPSOA reviewed this application and recommend denial. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01941

    Original file (BC-2006-01941.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence of record reflects the applicant’s AFSC was withdrawn for failing to progress in upgrade training, which resulted in removal of his line number. ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. B. J. WHITE-OLSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-01941 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05607

    Original file (BC 2013 05607.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was miscounseled when not told that he must reenlist before entering an extension, as well as, the 23 month extension was obligated service which would prevent him from reenlisting at a later time due to his high year tenure. On 31 March 2011, the applicant’s commander recommended approval of his request and his date of separation of 28 August 2012 was extended to 28 July 2014. While the applicant contends he was not offered the option to reenlist in March 2011 for the purpose of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04436

    Original file (BC-2011-04436.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSOS states that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the service characterization was appropriately administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete DPSOS 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 4 Sep 12 for review and comment within 15...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04736

    Original file (BC-2011-04736.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04736 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reason for separation (Air Force failure to fulfill enlistment agreement) be changed to a medical separation. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of her...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02097

    Original file (BC-2011-02097.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02097 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ 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” and separation program designator (SPD) codes be changed so that she can serve again in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01674

    Original file (BC-2003-01674.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01674 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation and Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed from “Pregnancy” to “Medically Disqualified not for Cause.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02851

    Original file (BC-2010-02851.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOS states they support DPSOA’s recommendation for approval based on the applicant not being provided the opportunity to request withdrawal of his separation request. The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPSIM states commanders are the approval authority for terminal leave and do not normally allow members to return to duty after leave begins. The complete HQ AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00516

    Original file (BC-2009-00516.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00516 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code 2C-Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without service characterization be changed to allow him to enlist in the National Guard. The HQ AFPC/DPSOA complete evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 01180

    Original file (BC 2011 01180.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01180 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel record, the applicant was discharged for not making satisfactory progress in a required training program. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits...