RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03004
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general, under other than honorable conditions, discharge be
upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He relocated to be closer to his terminally ill father and found the
trip to his unit to attend Unit Training Assembly’s (UTA’s) too far to
drive. He tried to get permission from his unit to transfer to an Air
National Guard (ANG) unit in Jackson, MS that would enable him to
continue his ANG career.
He contends that the type of discharge he received was unfair and
that, because of his exemplary service prior to his discharge, it
should be upgraded.
His submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Arkansas Air National Guard
(AR ANG) on 5 December 1992. He attained the rank of Senior Airman
(SRA/E-4).
Beginning in May 1994, he accumulated up to 20 unexcused absences by
not attending Unit Training Assembly’s (UTA’s). Applicant was warned
of an impending demotion in grade from SRA to Airman First Class
(A1C/E-3) as a result of his non-participation. Applicant was demoted
to A1C with an effective and date of rank of 25 October 1994.
He continued to miss UTA’s and subsequently was warned of impending
discharge action several times by return receipt letter. His
commander, notified him on 15 October 1994, that he was being
recommended for discharge with a General, Under Honorable Conditions,
discharge and transferal to the Individual Ready reserve (IRR).
On 3 December 1994, applicant was discharged under the auspices of AFI
36-3209, Unsatisfactory Participation (missed UTA's). He had
completed 2 years, 5 months and 27 days of service and was serving in
the grade of A1C at the time of discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ ANG/DPFP recommends denial. They note that while the applicant
alleges that he tried to transfer to the Mississippi ANG in order to
continue to serve, DPFP’s findings were contrary to the applicant’s
assertions. DPFP notes also that based on the discharge record from
the AR ANG, the applicant amassed over 20 unexcused absences during a
four-month period. AFI 36-3209 allows this type of discharge action
when the member accumulates 9 or more unexcused absences within a 12-
month period.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7
March 2003 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
there has been no response received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice warranting an upgrade of the
applicant’s discharge. We took notice of the applicant's complete
submission in judging the merits of the case to include his
declaration of extreme family hardship; 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. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided
no evidence which would lead us to believe that the information
contained in the discharge case file is erroneous, that he was not
afforded all the rights to which he was entitled, or that his
commanders abused their discretionary authority. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2002-03004 in Executive Session on 20 May 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Kenneth Dumm, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter,HQ ANG/DPFP, dated 22 Jan 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 2003.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02977
Applicant was warned of an impending demotion in grade from SRA to Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) as a result of his non-participation. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02977
Applicant was warned of an impending demotion in grade from SRA to Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) as a result of his non-participation. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00926
He was recommended for discharge for non-participation. In accordance with Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, “…members may be discharged when the member has accumulated nine or more unexcused absences from UTA within a 12-month period.” The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with prescribed directives and the State’s Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01031
He was provided a general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge from the -- ANG effective 15 February 2002. Therefore, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected to the extent indicated below. Michael K. Gallogly Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant Secretary AFBCMR BC-2003-01031 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03037
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03037 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC), discharge be upgraded to honorable. As a result, on 23 May 1982, a review panel made up of members from the HQ --- National Guard reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended he be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03346
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03346 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to honorable and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from ineligible to eligible. On 16 July 2001, the applicant's commander notified him that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01426
The commander recommended the applicant be discharged with a general, (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and while we sympathize with his situation at the time and appreciate his efforts to care for his family, there was simply no evidence presented that justified granting the requested relief; subsequently, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard office of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03628
He notes he had served with the Regular Air Force for a year and three months prior to serving with the Air National Guard (ANG). _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a former member of the Louisiana Air National Guard (LAANG) began his military career in the Regular Air Force on 20 April 1984. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00003
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a letter to the Board. He received a general, under honorable conditions, discharge from the MS ANG for non-participation on 30 October 1993 after 1 year, 9 months and 21 days of service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ANG/DPPI reviewed this application and recommended denial.
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2006-00028
EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-IWZ AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE Nl1b1BER FD~2006~00028 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed. - k.- .Cmsplt legal counsel.