RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03528

			COUNSEL:  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

			HEARING DESIRED: NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected in items 26, Separation Code, “JHJ,” and 28, 
Narrative Reason For Separation, “Unsatisfactory Performance,” 
to allow him to enlist in the Georgia, Air National Guard.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that the record is wrong because he asked to leave 
active duty to join the Georgia, Air National Guard.  He 
submitted a letter of request to his commander and she approved 
his request in accordance with AFI 36-3205, Applying for the 
Palace Chase and Palace Front Programs.  Additionally, at no 
time did he fail a school in the combat control pipeline so this 
does not fit the “unsatisfactory performance” in block 28 of his 
DD Form 214.  

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his 
letter to his congressional representative, letters of 
recommendation and documents extracted from his military 
personnel records.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
2 February 2010.  On 5 February 2013, the applicant was notified 
by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge from 
the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 Military 
Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.26.3, Unsatisfactory Duty 
Performance, specifically, failure to progress in military 
training required to be qualified for service with the Air Force 
or for performance of primary duties.  The reason for this 
action was as a result of receiving nonjudicial punishment under 
Article 15 for violation of Article 134, of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ), the applicant was eliminated from the 
Combat Control Apprentice Course (CCAC) and not allowed to 
retrain.  The applicant signed a memorandum dated 31 January 
2013, that he refused to be reclassified into another Air Force 
Specialty Code.  Therefore, he was recommended for discharge.  

On 8 February 2013, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification of discharge and was advised of his right to 
consult legal counsel as well as submit a statement to the 
commander for consideration.  The applicant opted to consult 
legal counsel and submit a statement in his behalf. Subsequent 
to the file being found legally sufficient, the discharge 
authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant 
be separated from the Air Force with an honorable discharge 
without probation and rehabilitation.  The applicant was 
credited with completing 3 years and 24 days of active duty 
service.  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states the applicant 
received counseling on several occasions and was afforded many 
opportunities to overcome his deficiencies.  They found no 
evidence of an error or injustice in the processing of the 
discharge action, nor did the applicant submit any such 
evidence.  Based on the documentation on file in the master 
personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason 
for separation and the separation code were consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  The applicant's discharge was based on his 
unsatisfactory progress in training based upon his elimination 
from technical training school.  He was given the opportunity to 
reclassify into another Air Force Specialty Code; however, he 
refused and signed a statement with the understanding that 
discharge would be the next course of action.  

The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant’s counsel on 10 January 2014, for review and comment 
within 30 days (Exhibit D).  To date, a response has not been 
received.  


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.  

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.  
The applicant has provided no evidence, which would lead us to 
believe the separation code and narrative reason for separation 
were contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation.  We 
note the applicant’s contention that he asked to leave active 
duty to join the Air National Guard and his commander approved 
his request in accordance with AFI 36-3205, Applying for the 
Palace Chase and Palace Front Programs.  However, the applicant 
has not provided any evidence showing that he was approved for 
this type of separation.  To the contrary, the evidence 
established shows the applicant's commander approved the 
recommendation for his administrative discharge.  The applicant 
has not provided evidence to persuade us otherwise and we agree 
with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force office 
of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis 
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of 
an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application.  

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with counsel will 
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.


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 1 April 2014, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
    		, Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03528 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 March 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 3 December 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 January 2014.




                                   Panel Chair