Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01426
Original file (BC-2003-01426.doc) Auto-classification: Denied





                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01426
            INDEX CODE:  100.03, 110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable, his reenlistment  (RE)
code be changed to eligible, the reason for discharge  be  changed  to
Convenience of the Government, he  be  given  a  pay  grade  and  rank
increase from Senior Airman (SRA/E-4) to  Staff  Sergeant  (SSgt/E-5),
and his discharge be backdated to 22 December 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His civilian employer required a letter from his  commander  as  proof
that he was attending Unit Training Assembly’s (UTA’s).  The commander
refused insisting that the  UTA  calendar  would  suffice.   Applicant
contends his brother-in-law was injured in a construction accident and
he felt bound to help his wife provide care for her  brother  as  they
had two small children.  Due to personal and  financial  problems,  he
was compelled to ask his  commander  for  a  reassignment,  which  the
commander denied.  He tried to reschedule his UTA attendance  but  was
finally forced to choose his civilian employment over his Air National
Guard (ANG) commitment as his civilian position paid more.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, copies of correspondence between himself and  his  civilian
employer   regarding   verification   of   UTA   attendance,   several
certificates of achievement, and copies of  discharge  documents  from
the US Navy and the ANG.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his enlistment in the ---- ANG (-- ANG) on 26
April 2000  as  a  Senior  Airman.   Applicant  failed  to  attend  28
consecutive UTA periods from August 2000 through February 2001.   Each
weekend  of  duty  constitutes  four  UTA’s.   Applicant’s   commander
initiated discharge action against the applicant, in  accordance  with
Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI)  36-3209,  on  10  December  2000   for
Unsatisfactory Participation.  The commander recommended the applicant
be discharged with a general, (Under Honorable Conditions)  discharge.
The applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  discharge  action  on  10
February 2001.  He noted his right to submit  statements  and  consult
counsel but waived his right to both, as he  wanted  to  expedite  the
discharge process in  order  to  enlist  in  the  Navy  Reserve.   The
discharge was found legally  sufficient  on  29  March  2001  and  the
applicant was duly discharged effective 15 April 2001 with 11 years, 1
month and 29 days of service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They  cite
AFI 36-3209, paragraph 3.13.2.1 where it states that ANG  members  may
be discharged for unsatisfactory participation  when  the  member  has
accumulated nine or more unexcused absences within a 12-month  period.
They note that the -- ANG Judge Advocate concurred with the reason for
separation, the  reenlistment  eligibility,  and  characterization  of
service.

ANG/DPPF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   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 timely filed.

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 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 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-
2003-01426 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 11 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 24 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 03.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01325

    Original file (BC-2003-01325.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2002-03037

    Original file (BC-2002-03037.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2003-01206

    Original file (BC-2003-01206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-01288

    Original file (BC-2003-01288.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was discharged from the TN ANG for unsatisfactory participation on 31 May 1997 after serving seven years, nine months, and six days of combined Reserve component and Regular Air Force service. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and while we sympathize with the applicant’s civilian employment predicament at the time, there is simply no...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01485

    Original file (BC-2002-01485.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2003-01031

    Original file (BC-2003-01031.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-2003-01011

    Original file (BC-2003-01011.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    She accepted and was honorably discharged from active duty and enlisted in the Rhode Island Air National Guard. As a full time deputy, she placed her law enforcement career as a priority over her weekend drill duties in the Guard. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03770

    Original file (BC-2002-03770.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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-2003-00003

    Original file (BC-2003-00003.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03982

    Original file (BC-2002-03982.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03982 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general, under honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and...