RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-1485
            INDEX CODE:  110.02, 100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be upgraded to honorable, his prior grade  and  rank  be
reinstated, and his reenlistment eligibility be changed to “Eligible.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unjustly  discharged  for  unsatisfactory  participation  after
suffering an injury that precluded his  attendance  at  Unit  Training
Assemblies (UTAs).  He believes that he should have been eligible  for
a “status changed due to  a  work  related  injury  and/or  a  medical
cause.”  He contends that he  should  have  been  granted  a  hardship
furlough.  He also contends that his rank, grade,  and  status  should
have been maintained.  He states that he kept in contact with his unit
in regard to his illness and kept  up  payments  to  his  Serviceman’s
Group Life Insurance (SGLI) policy even when he had  to  pay  premiums
from his own pocket.  Finally, he believes his rights as  a  guardsman
have been diminished between working for two  civilian  employers  and
not having necessary information available on the rights of  part-time
guardsmen.

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided copies of a discharge
review application,  a  personal  statement,  and  copies  of  medical
information.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the --- Air National Guard (--  ANG)  on  15
May 1992 after having served 9 years, 1 month and  24  days  of  prior
active and reserve component military service.  He attained  the  rank
of Airman First Class (A1C) with a date of rank and effective date  of
9 May 1996.  The -- ANG discharged the applicant on 18 July  1997  for
unsatisfactory  participation.   His  service   characterization   was
General Under Honorable Conditions and  his  reenlistment  eligibility
was “Ineligible.”  He had served a total of 11 years, 2 months, and  4
days at the time of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI reviewed  this  application  and  recommended  denial.   DPPI
states that they made an exhaustive attempt to obtain  any  supporting
information regarding this  case  from  the  applicant  and  from  the
applicant’s unit.  The -- ANG denies having the  applicant’s  official
record, including separation documents, and indicated that the records
were sent to the Air Reserve Personnel  Center  (ARPC).   DPPI  states
that upon receipt of the existing record on the applicant  they  found
no  pertinent   information   regarding   the   applicant,   including
separation/discharge paperwork.  DPPI notes  that  while  they  cannot
corroborate the -- ANG’s assertion that the applicant  was  discharged
for unsatisfactory participation  under  the  auspices  of  Air  Force
Instruction (AFI) 36-3209, the -- ANG maintains that the State’s Staff
Judge Advocate found the discharge legally  sufficient  and  that  the
applicant received notification,  via  return  receipt  mail,  of  the
actions being taken against him.

DPPI’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that  his  injury,  at  his  civilian  job,  occurred
approximately 25 September 1995.  He was  not  able  to  attend  UTA’s
beginning October 1995 and states that  he  kept  his  unit  (--  ANG)
informed of his status.  He states that he applied for and was waiting
for approval (presumably from his health care plan), to begin physical
therapy.  He notes that he called his unit between the end of November
1995 and the beginning  of  December  1995  to  make  sure  they  were
informed.  He was told that he would need to provide  verification  of
his medical condition.  On 10 January 1996, he  was  released  by  his
doctor to return to  work,  albeit  only  light  duty.   His  civilian
employer did not have any light duty positions at the time to give the
applicant so they agreed to let him start working at his unit to  help
make up missed UTA’s.  After only  four  days  however,  his  civilian
employer called him back to his civilian job,  to  begin  immediately.
Between physical therapy and exhortations from his doctor that he work
only limited hours, he was torn  between  the  ANG  and  his  civilian
employer and where his loyalties lay.  He was under a physician’s care
through September 1997 and states that he attended UTA’s when possible
in a light duty  position,  worked  for  his  civilian  employer  when
possible and kept as many physical therapy appointments  as  possible.
He  states  that  during  this  time  his  employment  situation   was
aggravated by the hospitalization of  his  wife,  and  they  began  to
suffer financial difficulties that amplified the familial stress.   He
states that he visited his ANG unit in June and July  1997  to  update
them and offer verification of his physician care.   He  does  express
concern  that  he  would  eventually  be  asked  to  provide   medical
documentation that  would  facilitate  a  temporary  transfer  to  the
retired reserve under medical conditions.

His rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

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  and
sympathize accordingly with the health  problems  he  has  documented.
However, we agree with the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air
National Guard  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.  Therefore, 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  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-1485 in Executive Session on 5 August 2003, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 29 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Jun 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jul 03, w/atchs.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair