RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01588
INDEX CODE: 100.06
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be changed to honorable and his reenlistment
eligibility be changed from ineligible to eligible.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was discharged due to unpaid debts on his American Express
government credit card. He never received any bills requiring
repayment of the debt and after notifying his unit of this problem was
told it would be taken care of. On another occasion, his unit gave
him a phone number to call. He called and encountered a recording
whereupon he left a message. He was never contacted by anyone and he
regrets not following up on the call. His debt was not addressed
until his discharge. He would do whatever is necessary to remedy this
situation in order to reenlist into the Air Force Reserve (AFRES) and
continue to serve his country.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his NGB
Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of
Service, and a demotion order reducing him in grade from Staff
Sergeant (SSgt/E-5) to Senior Airman - (Sgt/E-4), effective 14
February 1995.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted his enlistment in the --- Air National Guard
(-- ANG) on 16 December 1994. He attained the rank of SSgt with a
date of rank of 1 March 1988 and was demoted to SrA with a date of
rank of 14 February 1995. On 17 November 1996, he was notified by
letter of counseling (LOC) by his First Sergeant of an outstanding
debt on his government Master Card in the amount of $1,495. He
acknowledged this LOC by his signature. On 8 December 1996, his
commander ordered him, to pay the entire outstanding debt or face
disciplinary action. He acknowledged receipt and understanding of
this order by dating and signing it. He was subsequently discharged
effective 15 October 1997 with a general, (Under Honorable
Conditions), discharge and a reenlistment eligibility of “Ineligible.”
He had served 11 years, 5 months and 7 days of active, and reserve
service at discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPI recommends denial. DPPI states the service characterization
given by the -- ANG was appropriate for the conditions. DPPI notes
the applicant was discharged in accordance with Air Force Instruction
(AFI) 36-3209 that allows a general (Under Honorable Conditions)
discharge when a member’s service has been honest and faithful, but
significant negative aspects of conduct or performance outweigh
positive aspects of the member’s military record.
DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states he had served in the Air Force for 11 years without
any other mishaps, that he is not proud of his attitude during his
final two years in the Air Force and, age and his becoming a police
officer has made him wiser. He states when he signed his discharge
letters he did not understand the consequences of his actions,
especially that by accepting a general discharge he would be
prohibited from reenlisting in the military forces. He realizes he
should have been more proactive in resolving the (financial) situation
prior to his discharge and should have insisted on a response from
Personnel. He is taking steps now to repay the debt and is willing to
do whatever else is necessary to remedy this situation and get his
records corrected. He would like a second opportunity to serve his
country by enlisting in the Air Force Reserve.
Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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
the fact he is taking steps to repay the debt. 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. 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-
2003-01588 in Executive Session on 22 October 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 13 Aug 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant Rebuttal, dated 17 Sep 03.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
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-2003-01514
He had 4 years TIS and 3 years TIG at the time of his enlistment and other than the 3-level waiver, was fully qualified to be promoted to the grade of Senior Airman/E-4. A waiver was submitted, however the waiver was not timely approved because it lacked the necessary proof of certification. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03794
The above notwithstanding, the Air National Guard OPR has found that, based on the quarter hours she had earned at the time of her enlistment, she should have been enlisted as an Airman and not an Airman Basic. We agree with their finding and therefore recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below. MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant Secretary AFBCMR BC-2003-03794 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
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...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-02373
Her commander suspended the demotion action. On 3 May 2003, she failed to make satisfactory progress for the 6th time and her commander notified her of his intention to demote. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant Secretary MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03009
Decorations are not automatically awarded at the end of a tour; it is the supervisor’s decision as to whether or not an individual will be recommended for a decoration at any time. DPPI states that after a thorough review of the applicant’s records, there was no documentation to indicate that he had been awarded the Air Force Meritorious Service Medal or the Air Force Achievement Medal. After a thorough review of the available records, we found no evidence that the individual is eligible...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02407
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The few incidents his commander cites in his recommendation to demote do not support the demotion decision. The commander’s basis for demotion action is too vague and lacks the evidence necessary to prove the applicant actually made a false statement. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2004-02407 in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03714
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Because the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and personnel at his unit miscalculated his total years service date (TYSD), and did not review his application prior to his appointment, he was not given the correct information on which to base his decision regarding when to be appointed. ANG/DPPI’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...