Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01288
Original file (BC-2003-01288.doc) Auto-classification: Denied





                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01288
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general, under honorable  conditions,  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As a second term airman with the  Tennessee  Air  National  Guard  (TN
ANG), he found himself faced with mandatory overtime  requirements  at
his fulltime civilian job at a local factory.   He  was  missing  Unit
Training  Assemblies  (UTA’s)  because  of  his  job  and  was   being
threatened by his civilian employer with  implied  termination  if  he
kept missing work because of his military obligation.   He  asked  the
unit for assistance but they stated they could not help unless he  was
actually fired from his  civilian  job.   He  decided  to  choose  his
civilian employment over his military obligations  and  was  separated
with a general discharge for unsatisfactory participation.  He  states
he did not  know  the  difference  between  a  general  and  honorable
discharge until he looked  for  better  employment  and  competed  for
promotion  when  the  type  of  discharge  affected  both.   For   the
betterment of himself and his family,  he  would  like  the  Board  to
change his discharge status.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement.

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  He was serving in the grade of senior airman  (E-4)  at  the
time of discharge.

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI states in accordance with Air  Force
Instruction (AFI) 36-3209, members may be discharged when  the  member
has accumulated nine or more  unexcused  absences  within  a  12-month
period.  He received a General (Under Honorable Conditions)  discharge
in accordance with AFI 36-3209, attachment two that  states  “…  if  a
member’s service has been honest and faithful, but significant aspects
of conduct or performance of duty outweigh  positive  aspects  of  the
member’s military record.  DPPI states the characterization of service
was appropriate in this case.

DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force 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 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   civilian   employment
predicament at the time, there is simply no  evidence  presented  that
effectively  disputes  the  comments  of  the  Air   National   Guard;
subsequently, we agree with their opinion and recommendation 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-
2003-01288  in  Executive  Session  on  3  February  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 7 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 03.




                                   CHARLENE BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01426

    Original file (BC-2003-01426.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2002-03037

    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-2003-01031

    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-2003-01206

    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 | 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-2003-01011

    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-2003-02784

    Original file (BC-2003-02784.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 131.04 BC-2003-02784 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03719

    Original file (BC-2003-03719.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03277

    Original file (BC-2003-03277.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03277 INDEX CODE: 112.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His appointment date in the Air National Guard (ANG) of 7 April 2003 be changed to 19 May 2003. The applicant was appointed under the auspices of AFI 36-2005, dated 1 May 1998, wherein it states that prior service officers may be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03055

    Original file (BC-2003-03055.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03055 INDEX CODE: 128.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be awarded cash enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for both periods of her service in the Air National Guard (ANG): 1997 for three years and 2003 for six years. The criteria for receipt of enlistment/reenlistment bonuses in...