RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01050
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His administrative separation for Pattern of Misconduct be changed to
administrative separation for Non-Participation.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told, at separation, by his commanding officer (CO) to reapply
to the Air Force Reserve (AFRES). He had experienced grave financial
problems that led him to a decision between rent and the
transportation needed to get him to his Unit Training Assemblies
(UTA’s). He was just inside the commuting distance required that
would allow him lodging while at UTA. He realizes he made some bad
decisions but three years have gone by and he feels he has learned his
lesson. He would like the narrative reason for his discharge changed
to allow him to enter the AFRES.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement.
His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant's discharge package was missing, however the records show
that he was discharged from the New Jersey Air National Guard (NJ ANG)
effective 1 October 1999. He was discharged with a General, Under
Honorable Conditions discharge for a Pattern of Misconduct.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPI recommends denial. DPPI states that while no discharge
record is available at this time there is sufficient evidence,
including a statement from the NJ ANG Executive Staff Support Officer
(ESSO), which supports the type of discharge received by the
applicant. DPPI states that though the appearance may be that the
applicant was discharged for non-participation only, the statement
from the NJ ANG ESSO asserts the applicant failed to attend UTA’s in a
satisfactory manner and adds that he did not progress in his upgrade
training; he had problems with his government travel card and often
failed to communicate his whereabouts to his chain of command making
it sometimes impossible to contact him. The ESSO adds the applicant
never officially out-processed from the NJ ANG and still possesses
equipment that belongs to the government. DPPI states a discharge
order was provided as evidence the member was separated with a
“General, Under Honorable Conditions” discharge which suggests the
unit completed an administrative separation action which required an
approved Judge Advocate discharge package.
DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air National Guard evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 31 October 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 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. The comments of the Air Executive Officer for
the NJ ANG indicate that a pattern of misconduct indeed existed, in
conjunction with his unsatisfactory participation, which appears to
justify the type of discharge he received. 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-
2003-01050 in Executive Session on 10 December 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 6 Oct 03, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
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-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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-01485
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...
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-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...
AFMAN 36-8001, Reserve Personnel Participation and Training Procedures, does not apply to the ANG, the component to which he belonged at the time he performed the 48 IDT periods. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/FMF recommends the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02209
His commander had not submitted his name to the promotion board. DPPI states the applicant’s records contain no evidence to support his statement that he was ever recommended for promotion. The NY ANG holds that had an oversight been committed regarding his promotion, it would have been corrected during the year that passed between the time the board met and the applicant retired.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02242
He was offered a medical discharge in July 1968 after being diagnosed with Karatoconus. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a former member of the South Carolina ANG (SCANG), had secured a conditional release from the SCANG to perform his UTA’s in Utah as part of the ANG unit there. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01325
He states that three months later he received an informal discharge document that stated “General (under honorable conditions).” The discharge needs to be changed, as he believed himself to be in good standing. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant contracted his enlistment in the -- ANG on 4 November 1987 after voluntarily leaving the Regular Air Force under the Palace Chase program. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
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.