RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00995
INDEX CODE 110.03
COUNSEL: Mr. Daniel M. Schember
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show he was not separated from the Air National
Guard and he has continuously served as an Air National Guard member from
the date of his original enlistment through the present with award of all
appropriate entitlements incident to the correction.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His separation was caused by a Selective Retention Review Board decision
motivated by hostility to his proper, lawful actions as a technician labor
union steward.
Specifically, the Florida Air National Guard (FLANG) terminated his
military membership in retaliation for his exercise, during civilian
technician employment, of (1) his right under 5 U.S.C. § 7102 to assist and
to act for a labor organization; and (2) his First Amendment rights to (a)
associate with fellow civilian employees in a union, (b) petition for
redress, and (c) speak in furtherance of his and fellow employees' rights
in a non-disruptive manner expressly authorized by federal law. His duty
performance was excellent; he received numerous commendations. In June 96,
the Florida Air National Guard Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB or
Retention Board) decided to terminate his Air National Guard military
membership, effective 31 Dec 96. The SRRB decision automatically required
the termination of his civilian technician employment. The evidence
indicates that 3 members of the SRRB board who were opposed to the union
used their power as a majority of the SSRB membership to eliminate him
(Union supporters).
In support of his application, applicant has provided a brief with twenty-
nine (29) exhibits. His complete submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the FLANG on 14 Mar 70. He
served continuously as a FLANG full-time technician for 20 years, and 11
months, until 15 Dec 96, when he was honorably discharged from the FLANG
and the Reserve of the Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant. At
the time of his discharge, he was credited with 26 years, and 9 months, and
2 days total satisfactory Federal service. He will be eligible to receive
retired pay on 27 October 2011.
Documents provided by the applicant reveal that he served as an aircraft
weapons loader in both his civilian and his military positions. With
respect to his civilian employment, applicant served as a union steward.
On 17 Feb 95, the applicant received a sustained Superior Performance Award
for performance above expected standards.
During the month of Oct 95, for the rating period of 01 Nov 94 to 31 Oct
95, the applicant’s performance was rated with a Performance Appraisal Form
(NGB 430-1 (T)) as being “Excellent” by the Aircraft (ACFT) Ordinance
Mechanical System Supervisor, the ACFT Maintenance Supervisor, and
Logistics Group Commander.
On 12 Apr 96, after consideration of all factors contained in National
Guard Regulation (NGR) (AF) 35-6, the applicant was recommended for
reenlistment and retention by his supervisor. On 13 Apr 96, the applicant
was recommended for reenlistment and retention by his commander. On 14 Apr
96, the Logistics Group Commander concurred and recommended retention of
the applicant. On 25 Apr 96, the Wing Commander concurred and recommended
retention of the applicant.
By letter dated 12 Jun 96, the state Assistant Adjutant General for Air
advised the applicant that the SRRB had not approved him for continued
retention and that he would be separated from the FLANG on 31 Dec 96. The
applicant subsequently appealed this decision and his appeal was denied on
10 Oct 96.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPU, Personnel Operations Branch, reviewed this application and
recommended denial. DPPU stated the applicant was non-retained within the
guidelines of the Selective Retention Program. DPPU points out that within
the policies established by law and regulation, membership in the ANG is
the prerogative of the unit commander (see Exhibit C).
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air National Guard evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 3 Dec 99, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no response.
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 probable error or injustice. Considering all the evidence,
assertions, and information offered by the applicant, together with the
evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, we find no convincing
foundation to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. We are not persuaded that the SRB considered criteria
other than the applicant’s record. The Board recognizes the applicant’s
contributions to the Air National Guard, however, we find no evidence to
support a finding that the decision to non-retain the applicant was not in
accordance with the guidelines of the Selective Retention Program.
Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling 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 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 DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 August 8, 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Robert Zook, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 99 w/Atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter,ANG/DPPU, dated 15 Nov 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Dec 99.
ROBERT ZOOK
Panel Chair
A complete copy of the ANG/DPPU evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter, dated 14 Jul 00, counsel provided a response amending the requested relief, which is attached at Exhibit G. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the findings of a DOD IG Investigation, which concluded that the applicant’s removal from his...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00944
The decision of the Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) to non-retain him was in reprisal for his efforts to correct his civilian personnel records to reflect he was in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) instead of the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). In this case, the state of Michigan followed the appropriate procedural and program requirements during the selective retention process of the applicant. The stated basis of the Boards decision to non-retain the...
AF | BCMR | CY2001 | BC-1996-01737A
The denial of reenlistment was supported by the record - the correction was not. Although approximately 80 members of applicant’s ANG unit were due to reenlist or extend shortly before or after he was denied reenlistment, only the records of five members who were denied reenlistment have been provided. Applicant’s counsel states the ANG failed to provide us all of the available records of individuals denied reenlistment.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00833 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant, Air National Guard, be changed from 1 Sep 96 to 1 May 83, which would allow him to be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant effective 15 Nov 97. However, when he...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not provided sufficient...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to 9 Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-00427A
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to 9 Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). He requests correction of his records to show that he was not discharged and that he is eligible for reenlistment. The record contains evidence of several failures to go to work on time, including three occasions after he was recommended for reenlistment.
He be paid for duty he would have performed had he been allowed to continue serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) until his planned retirement date of 30 April 1998; i.e., 13 active duty (AD) days, 4 Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs) for April 1998, and 6 Additional Flying Training Periods (AFTPs) in March and April 1998. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the official documentation provided by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-03128
The IO further noted that any alleged lack of a succession plan may be evidence of a management problem, but in itself is not a sufficient force management reason to non-retain personnel. The report is appended at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/JA reviewed applicant's request and recommends approval of his request for reinstatement in the ANG and that he receives all back pay and allowances. Based on the above...