RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00493
INDEX CODE: 110.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Block 26 of National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, National Guard Bureau
Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed from
“Ineligible” to “Eligible” to reenlist.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was forced to retire early due to marital problems. His ex-spouse
is an officer in the South Carolina Air National Guard (SC ANG) and it
was easier to retire him than it would be for his ex-spouse. He would
like to be able to continue to serve his country.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his NGB
Form 22, the order assigning him to the Retired Reserve, and a point
credit history.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant began his military career on 26 June 1973. He served a
total of 28 years, 5 months, and 18 days of combined active and
Reserve component service. He was honorably discharged and
transferred to the Retired Reserve on 14 December 2001. He was a
technical sergeant (E-6) at the time of discharge and eligible for
Reserve retired pay at age 60.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPI recommends denial. DPPI states they contacted the SC ANG for
additional information regarding his retirement and was told he
accepted retirement in lieu of administrative discharge processing.
DPPI notes he was not sent a letter of notification (LON) as required
by Air Force Instructions (AFI’s) when an enlisted member is being
considered for involuntary separation. DPPI indicates the SC ANG
offered the early retirement option to the applicant prior to formally
initiating the administrative discharge action, and prior to formally
offering the member the retirement option via an LON.
DPPI includes a Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) memorandum (attached) that
provides a record of the circumstances and information available to
the commander at the time of applicant’s retirement. The decision to
render an “Ineligible” (to reenlist) was based on the legal opinion of
the SJA and was a direct result of the available evidence of
applicant’s past performance. Additionally, in order to be
transferred to the Retired Reserve, he had to apply for such via an AF
Form 131, Application for Transfer to the Retired Reserve.
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 November 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 an error or injustice warranting changes to the
applicant’s reenlistment eligibility. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case to
include his assertion that he was forced to retire early as his ex-
wife was also a member of the SC ANG. 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. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided
no evidence that would lead us to believe that the discharge action
was erroneous, that he was not afforded all the rights to which he was
entitled, or that his leadership abused their discretionary authority.
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-
2003-00493 in Executive Session on 6 January 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 22 Jul 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 03.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02087
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02087 INDEX CODE: 128.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His eligibility for bonus/loan repayment entitlements be reconsidered. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was informed the he was eligible for the student loan and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02499
The requested time is documented on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, from his enlistment with the USMC. DPPI states that since the applicant voluntarily enlisted with NavRes, on 29 March 1990, at a lower grade (E-3), and, because he did not qualify for enlistment with the FL ANG as an E-6, he is not entitled to count the time spent in the USMC as an E-6. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2002-02537
A request to retire (Temporary Early Retirement Authority – TERA) should have been approved by the Air National Guard (ANG) and the U.S. Air Force. His application to retire early under TERA was disapproved and he subsequently accepted an SSB as a result of an involuntary RIF action. The DPPI statement “116th Wing commander elected to fund the new CM position and according to Georgia (ANG) the applicant did not apply for the position when the vacancy was announced.” He began terminal leave...
The Board directed that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that he was not released from active duty on 8 Mar 96 under the provisions of AFI 36-3209 (Misconduct), transferred to the Kansas Air National Guard on 2 Apr 96, discharged from the Kansas Air National Guard on 31 Jul 97, and assigned to the Retired Reserve on 2 Aug 97; but was continued on active duty until 31 Jan 99; and, that he was released from active duty on 31 Jan 99 for the Convenience of the Government...
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-2003-01514
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-2003-04132
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: As a member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard (MAANG) he missed two Unit Training Assemblies (UTA’s) due to his frustration with not being cross-trained from an administrative position to a Weapons Systems Security Flight (WSSF) position. His plan for his future includes enlisting in the Coast Guard now and working with their Port Security team. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01000
Applicant received active duty pay for the period 28 September through 30 September 2002; therefore, he incurred a debt of $635.94. If he were to provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider his 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...
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...