ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF' MILITARY RECORDS 

2AN 2 0 1999 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02724 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His  approved  hardship  discharge  be  changed  to  miscellaneous 
discharge;  or, in the alternative, the approved direcJed  AFBCMR 
Docket  Number  97-02724,  dated  27 Aug  98  be  voided  to  permit 
retention on active duty. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

With the current discharge from active duty of hardship, he will 
not be allowed into the Air Force Reserves.  With a discharge for 
financial hardship,  there  is  a mandatory  waiting  period  of  one 
year  before  a  waiver  can  be  submitted  to  have  the  hardship 
waived.  Even  with  a  waiver,  there  is  no  guarantee  that  the 
hardship would be waived. 

Applicant's  complete submission is attached at Exhibit G. 

RESUME OF CASE: 

In an application, dated 1 8   Aug  97, the applicant requested that 
his  grade  at  time  of  enlistment  into  the  Air  Force be  changed 
from senior airman to staff sergeant; or, in the alternative, he 
be released from his current enlistment contract.  On 14 Jul and 
31 Jul  98,  the  Board  denied  applicant's  request  that  his 
enlistment grade be changed.  However, after noting the applicant 
sold  his  home  and  he  and  his  wife  terminated  their  civilian 
employment  believing  he  had  sufficient  total  active  federal 
military service to qualify for the higher enlistment grade, the 
Board  recommended  he  be  discharged  under  hardship  reasons  (see 
Exhibit H). 

On  5 Oct  98, the  applicant requested  that  the  Board  change  his 
reenlistment eligibility  (RE) code because  he  would  not  be  able 
to reenlist back into the Reserves.  However, since the applicant 

was  still on active duty, the AFBCMR  informed him that it would 
be premature for the Board to review his application at this time 
(Exhibit I). 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  applicant  contacted  officials  at  the  Air  Force  Personnel 
Center,  Randolph  AFB,  Texas,  and  the  Military  Personnel 
Management  Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS,  provided  an  advisory  opinion 
stating  that  the  applicant is  a  fully  qualified MC-130E  Flight 
Engineer  and  the  Air  Force  receives only  4  training  slots  per 
fiscal year  (FY) for the MC-130E course.  DPPRS also stated that 
training  costs  for  the  MC-130E  (Combat  Talon  I)  school  is 
$80,949; therefore, retention in the active force would be in the 
best  interest  of  the  service.  DPPRS  recommended  approval  of 
applicant’s  request  that  his  approved  hardship  discharge  be 
voided. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit J. 

.a 

THE  BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
We  have  thoroughly reviewed the  entire application; however, we 
are  not  persuaded  that  the  narrative  reason  for  applicant’s 
approved  hardship  discharge  should  be  changed  to  miscellaneous 
reasons; or, that the Memorandum to the Chief of Staff of the Air 
Force,  dated  27 Aug  98,  be  declared  void.  The  recommendation 
from the Air  Force, dated 20 Nov  98, is duly noted; however, our 
decision  on  applicant’s original  request  was  predicated  on  the 
belief  that  for  him  to  remain  on  active  duty  would  create  a 
financial hardship for him and his family.  Therefore, based upon 
his desire to pursue a civilian career after  further schooling, 
we  recommended that  he  be  discharged  on  the  basis  of  hardship. 
It now appears that his circumstances have changed and he wishes 
to remain on active duty or join the Reserves.  However, we find 
insufficient evidence to persuade us that continuing applicant on 
active duty will  alleviate the  financial hardship  from which  he 
was  suffering  nor  are  we  not  convinced that  should  we  approve 
either of his  current requests that he will  not  change his mind 
again in the future when the whim strikes him.  In tkis respect, 
applicant is reminded that a  final decision was  not made on his 
application until he  was  given  time  to determine  when  the most 
opportune  time  for  discharge  would  be. 
With  regard  to  his 
contention that he will not be allowed to join the Reserves with 
the  RE  code  which  he  will  receive  when  he  is  discharged,  we 
remind applicant that if he meets all other enlistmert criteria, 
his  recruiter  may  submit  a  request  for  waiver  of  the  RE  code 
Therefore,  in  view  of  t h e  
through  the  recruiting  channels. 

. 

. .. ----. 

foregoing  and  absent  persuasive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  w e  
believe  that our o r i g i n a l   d e c i s i o n   should  not  be changed. 

The  applicant  be  notified  t h a t   the  evidence  presented  d i d   not 
material  error  or 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable 
injustice;  that  t h e   application  was  denied. without  a  personal 
appearance;  and  that  the  application  will  only  be  resonsidered 
upon  the  submission  of  newly  discovered  ztelevant  evidence  not 
Conaidered  with this application. 

The f o l l o w i n g   members of  the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session  on  22 December  1998,  under  the  provisions  of 
Air Force  Instruction 36-2603: 

Ms.  P a t r i c i a   J -  Zarodkiewicz,  Panel Chair 
Mr.  Loren S .   Perlstein, Member 
Mr.  Richard  A.  Peterson, Member 
Mrs.  Joyce Earlev,  Examiner  (without vote) 

-A 

The  following documentary evidence  was  considered: 

Exhibit G .  
Exhibit  H. 
Exhibit 
Exhibit  J. 

DD Form 149, dated  5 Nov  98,  w/atchs. 
Record of Proceedings,  dated 23  Aug  98,  w/atchs. 
Letter,  AFBCMR,  d a t e d   20 Oct  98. 
Letter,  AFPC/DPPRS,  dated  20 Nov  98- 

h 

DEP~RTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 
AFBCMR 97-02724 

JAN 2 0 7999 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for 

Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States 
Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: 

The 
as pertains t 

97-02724, issued on 27 Adgust  1998, 

e, and hereby is, declared void. 

I/  Air Force Review Boards Agency 

DEPA~TMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR 

CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

FROM:  SAF/MIB 
SUBJECT:  AFBCMR case 0

AFBCMR Docket No. 97-02724 

0

 

In my original decision, I accepted the rationale of the Board that the applicant's 

enlistment grade should not be changed but rather, he should be discharged for hardship effective 
January 29,  1999. After a careful review of the applicant's newest submission, I believe there is 
sufficient justification to revise my earlier decision. 

I can certainly understand the Board's fizlstration with the applicant's apparent &ability to 
decide what it is he is requesting.  In this respect, I note that the Board, after making their initial 
recommendation, allowed him ample opportunity to decide when would be the most 
advantageous time for him to be discharged in order that a hrther hardship was not imposed upon 
him and his family.  Now it seems that his situation has changed again and he no longer wishes to 
pursue advanced education in his field of expertise and a civilian career at this time and he wants 
the Board's decision either reversed or changed to something more to his liking.  Apparently, his 
financial situation has been resolved to the extent that remaining on active duty will no longer 
pose a hancial hardship.  Thus, he has requested that either the narrative reason for his discharge 
be changed to miscellaneous reasons and his reenlistment eligibility code be changed to one 
allowing his enlistment in the Reserves; or, in the alternative, he be allowed to remain on active 
duty and hlfill his enlistment contract. 

Since the only reason the Board recommended, and I approved, any relief for this 

applicant in the first place was to alleviate a presumed financial hardship, it would clearly be 
contrary to the intent of that decision to now either release him from active duty or change the 
narrative reason for that discharge solely on the basis that the circumstances of his situation have 
changed.  Therefore, I believe that in the interest of justice, the applicant should remain on active 
duty and hlfill his enlistment contract.  In coming to this conclusion, I have considered the Air 
Force's recommendation that applicant remain on active duty inasmuch as he is a fblly qualified 
MC-130E Flight Engineer, the Air Force receives only four training slots per fiscal year for the 
MC-130E course, and the training costs for the MC-130E schooling is $80,949.  Thus, it appears 
that permitting the applicant to serve is in the best interests of all concerned. 

Accordingly, it is my decision that his request to remain on active duty be granted. 

I/  Director 

U 

Air Force Review Boards Agency