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.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was a student leader of 50 men and attended leadership
school, the police academy and combat school.
The applicant provides no documents in support of his request.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 12 May 1980, the applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force.
On 14 May 1981, his commander notified him he was recommending
he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR
39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The specific
reasons are reflected in the Letter of Notification at Exhibit
B.
On 14 May 1981, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
discharge notification and waived his rights to consult with
legal counsel or to submit statements.
On 19 Jun 1981, he received an honorable discharge. The
narrative reason for separation was Marginal Performer Assigned
to Organizational Unit. He served one year, one month and
eight days of total active service.
________________________________________________________________
?
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states that they found no
evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of his
discharge. The applicant apparently believes there is no
information contained in his discharge record that reflects he
should have been given a separation code of JEM, which denotes
Marginal Performer. However, DPSOR confirmed the separation
code of JEM is correct. His personnel records indicate he
requested that his shift commander write a letter concerning his
incompetency as a security policeman to expedite his separation
from the Air Force. He also informed his shift commander that
he was trying to go through the proper channels to get
discharged and if she could not help him he would take measures
that were inappropriate. His shift commander felt it would be
detrimental for him to carry a weapon so she had him turn his
weapon in. Moreover, she stated his present defective attitude
towards the Air Force has resulted in his work performance
continuing to be a problem area. The applicant stated that his
personal problems would resolve if he were discharged and that
he had no interest or motivation in remaining in the Air Force.
The documentation on file in his master personnel records
supports the basis for his narrative reason for separation.
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 3 Feb 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant 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 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 responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
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 this application
in Executive Session on 27 Aug 2013, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-05330:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 2012.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 Jan 2013
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 2013.
Acting Panel Chair
2
2
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03108
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03108 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation code of JEM (Expeditious Discharge) be changed on his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty. Based on the documentation on file in the applicants master personnel records, the discharge, to include, the authority and...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05837
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A. The applicant provided no facts warranting a change to her narrative reason for separation. We took notice of the applicants 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05837
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A. The applicant provided no facts warranting a change to her narrative reason for separation. We took notice of the applicants 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03965
On 17 Jul 1995, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force. DPSOR states that the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include his separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03965
On 17 Jul 1995, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was not recommending him for reenlistment in the Air Force. DPSOR states that the applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include his separation code was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00120
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00120 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her involuntary discharge (under honorable conditions) for personality disorder be changed to a medical separation for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Medical Consultant states that while the evidence is not supportive of a medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 02567
Since that time, she was seen at the clinic for alcohol abuse and a suicide attempt on 4 Oct 2002. However, the mental health professional who evaluated her determined that her primary diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder and that she had an S4T profile, secondary to her alcohol abuse and involvement in the ADAPT program. She suffers from depression, suicidal ideations, anger issues, and has a personality disorder, which began during her time in the military and has continued...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02567
Since that time, she was seen at the clinic for alcohol abuse and a suicide attempt on 4 Oct 2002. However, the mental health professional who evaluated her determined that her primary diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder and that she had an S4T profile, secondary to her alcohol abuse and involvement in the ADAPT program. She suffers from depression, suicidal ideations, anger issues, and has a personality disorder, which began during her time in the military and has continued...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03870
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicants request to change his reentry (RE) code. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to change his character of service and narrative reason for separation. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2012-03870...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03870
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial of the applicants request to change his reentry (RE) code. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to change his character of service and narrative reason for separation. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2012-03870...