RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02416
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His narrative reason for separation be changed from 
unsatisfactory performance to reduction in force or separation 
authorized by HQ USAF.

2.  His separation code (SPD) be changed from JHJ 
(unsatisfactory performance) to JCC (reduction in force) or JHF 
(failure to complete course action).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  He was unfairly discharged instead of being reclassified. 

2.  His narrative reason for separation and SPD code should 
reflect reduction in force instead of unsatisfactory 
performance.

3.  The fact he is unable to serve again because he failed tests 
is an injustice.  Air Force policy dictates that airmen will be 
given an opportunity to overcome their deficiencies, but he was 
not.  He was advised that he would be able to be reclassified, 
but was instead discharged without being given an opportunity to 
overcome his deficiencies. 

4.  Air Force policy dictates a commander must weigh the 
airman’s conduct, military deportment, and duty performance 
against those other airmen.  He was discharged without 
consideration given to his entire record.  While on active duty 
there were no disciplinary actions against him.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Jun 12, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

The applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending 
his discharge from the Air Force for failure to progress in 
military training.  The specific reasons for the discharge 
action was that on or about 14 Jan 13 and 12 Feb 13, the 
applicant failed his A+ Essentials examination, scoring 613 and 
616 when a score of 675 was required to pass.  On 14 Feb 13, the 
applicant was academically eliminated from his technical 
training.  The applicant’s commander noted in the recommendation 
for discharge that he initially recommended the applicant for 
reclassification into another career field, however; under the 
AF/A1PT and 2 AF/CC FY13 reclassification/end strength guidance, 
reclassification was no longer an option and discharge was 
deemed to be in the best interest of the Air Force.  
Furthermore, since reclassification cases are approved based on 
Air Force needs, he did not recommend the applicant for 
probation and rehabilitation.

On 12 Mar 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, 
consulted legal counsel, and elected to submit a statement on 
his behalf.

On 13 Mar 13, the case was found legally sufficient and the 
discharge authority directed the applicant be honorably 
discharged without probation and rehabilitation the same day.

On 15 Mar 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge 
and was credited with nine months and four days of active 
service.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant failed two critical 
examinations on two separation occasions.  He had 28 days 
between the examinations to prepare himself to successfully 
complete the examination.  A passing score was mandatory to 
progress in the class, thus, the applicant was eliminated from 
the course.  He was precluded from retraining into another 
career field due to end strength requirements.  The 
documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records 
indicates the discharge, to include the type of separation, 
separation code, narrative reason for separation, and character 
of service, was appropriately administered and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant has not 
provided any evidence or identified any error or injustices that 
occurred in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant questions whether failing a test twice is a reason 
to bar reentry for military service.  While it appears his 
discharge was processed in accordance with the governing 
instruction, he believes the process should be reviewed for 
inconsistencies.  He was told during his out processing that 
since he received an honorable discharge he could reenlist in 
six months.  He did not know what the codes meant until he went 
to reenlist.  He asks that consideration be given to the entire 
basis for his discharge which was mostly based on the 
reclassification denial and to meet end strengths and budgetary 
constraints.

The applicant’s complete response, 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 timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice.  The applicant argues 
that his separation for unsatisfactory performance is unjust 
when his commander supported his retention and reclassification 
and that it is unfair that he is forever barred to serve for 
failing two tests, when his record of performance is otherwise 
strong.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and 
the applicant’s complete submission, we agree.  We note the 
applicant has not presented any evidence to indicate an error 
occurred during the request for reclassification or discharge 
processes.  Based on the available evidence of record, it 
appears the applicant’s was honorable discharge for 
unsatisfactory performance was consistent with the substantive 
requirements of the governing instructions and within the 
commander’s discretionary authority.  He has provided no 
evidence which would lead us to believe his separation was 
improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing 
directive, or the narrative reason for separation and or the 
separation code issued were erroneous or inappropriately 
assigned.  Nevertheless, consideration of this Board is not 
limited to evaluating the events that precipitated the 
discharge.  In this respect, it may base its decision on matters 
of equity and justice, rather than simply on whether rules and 
regulations, which existed at the time of the discharge, were 
followed.  Under this broader mandate and after careful 
consideration of the applicant’s record of service and his 
commander’s unequivocal support of his retention, we believe it 
would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s 
record so that he may once again apply for enlistment.  Whether 
or not he is successful will be based on the needs of the 
service, provided he is otherwise qualified.  Therefore, we 
recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated 
below.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the 
time of his discharge on 15 March 2013, the narrative reason for 
his discharge was “Secretarial Authority,” with a Separation 
Program Designator (SPD) code of “KFF.”


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02416 in Executive Session on 14 Oct 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair 
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 Dec 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, 31 Jan 14, w/atchs.