RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00003
INDEX CODE: 100.06
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reenlistment eligibility be changed from ineligible to eligible so
that he may reenlist in the Air National Guard (ANG).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to school commitments, and civilian employment conflicts, he was
unable to attend necessary Unit Training Assemblies (UTA’s) and, on
advice from his supervisor, he left the ANG under what he believed to
be honorable conditions. He did not know at the time of his discharge
that he would not be able to reenlist in the ANG.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a letter to the
Board.
His complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Mississippi ANG (MS ANG) on 10 January 1992
in the grade of Senior Airman (SRA). Applicant had four (4) years
prior service in the Regular Air Force.
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. He was offered legal counsel and the
opportunity to submit statements on his behalf. He did not take
advantage of either opportunity.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPI reviewed this application and recommended denial. Applicant
had accumulated 12 unexcused absences within a 3-month time frame.
DPPI states that the applicant was notified via return receipt mail of
each unexcused absence and given the opportunity to make them up.
DPPI notes also that the applicant was counseled on the seriousness of
the unexcused absences and made aware of the consequences of non-
attendance. The discharge, found legally sufficient by the MS ANG
Judge Advocate General (JAG), was executed under the auspices of ANG
Regulation 39-10 that allows separation/discharge of airmen who
accumulate up to 9 unexcused absences within a 12-month time frame.
DPPI’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4
April 2003 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been 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 error or injustice. We took note of his record of
service during his initial four years in the Air Force. However,
after a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's
submission, we do not find his uncorroborated assertions of ignorance
regarding his transfer to the IRR sufficiently persuasive to override
the rationale provided by the Air National Guard. Therefore, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard office
of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his
burden of having suffered either an error or injustice. Consequently,
in the absence of persuasive 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-
2003-00003 in Executive Session on 8 July 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Dec 02, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 13 Mar 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Apr 03.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
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-2003-00326
His character of service was Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) and his reenlistment eligibility was recorded as “Ineligible.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ANG/DPPI recommends denial. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting a change in his discharge and reenlisment eligibility. Vaughn E. Schlunz Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03736
After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the applicant's enlistment in the Air National Guard in the grade of Airman Basic was in accordance with ANGI 36-2002. However, in view of the fact that the applicant accrued over 30 quarter hours of college credits by the time she graduated from high school in June 2002, we believe she should be entitled to the benefit of this achievement. JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00205
He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 January 1998 in the grade of SrA. 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 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03004
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 was demoted to A1C with an effective and date of rank of 25 October 1994. DPFP notes also that based on the discharge record...
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 | 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-2003-03719
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 National Guard and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...