RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01325
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be changed to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He notified his supervisor that he needed a leave of absence to deal
with being homeless and needing to find full time employment and he
received his supervisor’s permission and blessing. 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. He would
like to be able to reenlist in the ---- Air National Guard (-- ANG) to
help protect our country and reap educational benefits the state
offers.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
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. He enlisted in the -- ANG as a Senior Airman (SRA/E-
4). On 14 September 1988, applicant was notified by his commander
that he was being recommended for discharge in accordance with ANG
Regulation (ANGR) 39-10, Unsatisfactory Participation. The applicant
was involuntarily discharged, effective 1 February 1989, after serving
three years, four months, and twenty-six days of combined active and
reserve service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPI recommends denial. DPPI states that, while the applicant
contends he had an approved leave of absence, the -- ANG argues that
if the applicant did have an excused absence, it would not have been
approved for an indefinite period. DPPI notes that the applicant made
no attempt to return to duty at any time to fulfill his Palace Chase
enlistment contract and, in fact, attended no Unit Training Assemblies
(UTA’s) from June 1988 until his involuntary discharge on 1 February
1989. ANGR 39-10 authorizes the involuntary separation of ANG members
who accumulate nine or more unexcused absences within a 12-month
period.
DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, 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 15 August 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 and
while we sympathize with the applicant’s situation at the time, there
is simply no evidence presented that effectively disputes that of the
Air National Guard office of primary responsibility; subsequently, 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2003-01325 in Executive Session on 16 September 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 03.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 5 Aug 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-02842
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant is a prior service member of the US Air Force (USAF) with two years, two months and five days of active service before transferring to the Air National Guard (ANG) under the Palace Chase program. She served her time to qualify for her benefits and is being denied them simply because she chose to serve part time rather than not at all which would have been the case had she been separated...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01206
He was serving in the grade of Senior Airman (SRA/E-4) and had served for six years, one month, and seventeen days at the time of his discharge. DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, 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 8 August 2003 for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03770
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His dental work, done while on active duty was not completed. DPPI notes that the -- ANG maintains that the applicant was a “no show” for at least four of his dental appointments during his active duty tour. 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 office of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01481
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ANG/DPPI states that the applicant was involuntarily discharged from the Air National Guard in accordance with ANGR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, dated 15 September 1987, Para 8-17, “Airman will be processed or discharged for misconduct based on drug abuse.” Based on the provisions of the governing regulation and the information in the applicant’s discharge case file, they recommend denial...
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...
On 3 January 1992, the Director of Personnel notified applicant that because of her inability to meet her recruiting goals, he was recommending her recruiting tour be terminated for substandard duty performance under the provisions of ANGR 35-03, para 6-5c(4). On 20 March 1992, The Adjutant General notified applicant that after a thorough review of the investigating officer's report and applicant's recommendation for involuntary separation from Full-Time National Guard Duty for substandard...
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 | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04052
On 4 December 1997, the Board considered applicant’s request and found sufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant the applicant’s physical evaluation through the Air Force Disability System to determine his medical condition as of 4 October 1994. A copy of the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit C. On 25 February 1999, the Board considered the findings and recommendations of the Air Force Disability System and denied the applicant’s request that his records be changed to show...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02810
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02810 INDEX CODE 128.10 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: A pro-rated portion (approximately $666.67) of his original enlistment bonus be refunded. Information about PALACE CHASE is provided with the applicant’s military personnel records at Exhibit B. Recommend disapproval of his request...