AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02247 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
    
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected to remove his narrative reason for separation 
of “Voluntary Resignation Substandard Performance.” 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. The narrative reason for separation is a direct contradiction 
between  his  Officer  Efficiency  Reports  (OERs)  and  the  clause 
substandard performance.  He is 60 years of age and has a heart 
condition, and would like to clear his name before he dies.   
 
2. He was assigned to a Missile Squadron for four years.  While 
in  training  he  was  briefed  on  the  Personal  Reliability  Program 
(PRP) which was designed to monitor the emotional stress levels 
of individual in the program.  His spouse had problems adjusting 
living on a missile base, which compounded his stresses of being 
assigned  as  a  missile  officer.    However,  despite  all  the 
stresses,  he  pulled  his  full  load  of  missile  combat  alerts 
without a hint of a possible PRP intervention.   
 
3. In 1980, the Air Force inserted launch keys on two separate 
occasions.  The Iranian hostage crisis was happening and personal 
cutbacks to the missile crew began, which meant they were working 
more than ever to sustain the mission. 
 
4.  In  1981,  PROJECT  WARRIOR  was  introduced  to  the  missile  crew 
force and the concept of deterrence was being replaced with the 
Limited  Nuclear  Option,  which  meant  the  United  States  would 
absorb  a  first  strike  before  our  missiles  were  launched.    He 
began  to  realize  that  as  a  missile  combat  crew  commander,  he 
would  be  responsible  for  launching  intercontinental  ballistic 
missiles at civilian targets prior to a Soviet missile launch.   
 
5.  In  April  1982,  he  resigned  his  commission  and  disavowed  all 
things nuclear on moral and ethical grounds.  He worked another 
five  months  as  an  unclassified  officer  who  assisted  with  the 
disaster preparedness program prior to being out-processed.  He 
notes that crew members who were resigning their commissions for 
religious  reasons  were  being  out-processed  immediately  with  an 

honorable  discharge  and  a  narrative  reason  for  separation  of 
“Voluntary Resignation.”  However, because he was resigning for 
moral  and  ethical  reasons,  the  Air  Force  was  attempting  to 
prosecute  him  until  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  (SECAF) 
intervened  on  his  behalf.    Although  the  SECAF  intervened,  the 
commander  still  had  Substandard  Performance  annotated  on  his 
DD Form 214 without regard to his actual performance as reflected 
on his OERs, letters of appreciation, letters of accommodations, 
and his training record.  
 
6. As a young captain, he took a stand that was based on strong 
personal beliefs because he was opposed to the premeditated use 
of nuclear weapons. 
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides excerpts from 
his official military personnel records. 
 
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant was notified of his permanent decertification from 
the PRP on 14 Apr 82.  On 15 Apr 82, he underwent a psychiatric 
evaluation that found he was qualified for duties and accordance 
with the governing regulation.   
 
He  received  an  honorable  discharge  with  a  narrative  reason  for 
separation of “Voluntary Resignation Substandard Performance.”   
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force, which is at Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial by stating that an officer that is 
discharged  solely  for  substandard  performance  of  duty  will 
receive an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s commander cited 
his  duty  performance  as  substandard,  which  resulted  in  an 
unacceptable record of effectiveness.  The discharge, to include 
the  narrative  reason  for  separation,  was  consistent  with  the 
procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge 
instruction and was within the discharge authority’s discretion.  
 
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 

1.  The  AFPC/DPSOR  evaluation  classifies  his  gender  as  female; 
however, in the documents presented, his gender is reflected 51 
times as male.   
 
2. He wants the documents in his case to be reviewed so that a 
determination can be made that will show a contradiction in his 
performance and that of what is written on his DD Form 214. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
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.    Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice.  After our review of 
the  evidence  of  record,  the  Board  majority  believes  relief  is 
warranted.    We  note  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary 
responsibility  recommends  disapproval;  however,  the  majority 
believes that an injustice has occurred in this case and in the 
interest of justice, the applicant’s SPD code should be changed 
to “FND” (Miscellaneous/general reasons).  Given the applicant’s 
exemplary service as noted in his performance reports and other 
supporting documents, the Board majority believes that sufficient 
evidence  has  been  presented  to  resolve  any  doubt  in  the 
applicant’s favor.  Therefore, the Board majority recommends the 
applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was discharged 
on 24 September 1982, with a narrative reason for separation of 
"Miscellaneous/General 
"Voluntary 
Resignation  Substandard  Performance",  and  a  separation  code  of 
"FND," rather than "BHK". 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-02247 in Executive Session on 25 Oct 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

Reasons," 

rather 

than 

 

 
By  a  majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as 
recommended.  Mr. Frank voted to deny the applicant’s request and 
submitted  a  Minority  Report,  which  is  at  Exhibit  E.    The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 May 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Jul 12. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Aug 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit E.  Minority Report, dated 8 Nov 12. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair