RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01205
INDEX CODE: 110.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her service record be corrected to show she did not have a break in
service from 16 February 2004 through 25 March 2004, and that she
receive retroactive leave and pay for that period.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her unit commander denied her reenlistment. After she filed a
complaint, an investigation was completed and her Wing commander
determined she should be reenlisted. She was reenlisted effective 26
March 2004.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided copies of an
National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 333, Discrimination Complaint in the
Army and Air National Guard, pertinent email traffic, the Special
Order ordering her to an Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) position for one
year, DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the
United States, her original enlistment document and AGR order, an NGB
Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of
Service, and a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Her commander notified the applicant, a member of the Missouri Air
National Guard (MOANG), on 6 November 2003, that her request for
reenlistment would be denied. Applicant filed a racial discrimination
complaint against her commander on 12 December 2003. She was
honorably discharged on 15 February 2004 with a reenlistment
eligibility of “Eligible.” An investigation regarding the racial
discrimination suit concluded on 25 February 2004, found that the
alleged discrimination could not be substantiated. On 23 March 2004,
the Wing Commander allowed her to reenlist in the MOANG for a period
of three years but only reinstated her AGR tour for one year.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPP recommends denial. DPP reiterates the investigation into her
allegation of racial discrimination was not substantiated. DPP also
points to several performance reports and other related disciplinary
documentation that clearly show substandard behavior and performance
on the part of the applicant. DPP states she was continually verbally
admonished for performance and standards violations but the desired
improvements never seemed to materialize. DPP notes that her filing
of a racial discrimination complaint after she was told she would not
be allowed to reenlist seems more like an act of retribution instead
of a search for justice. As her allegation of racial discrimination
was found to be unsubstantiated, DPP feels the ANG is not obligated to
provide retroactive benefits, entitlements, or back pay.
DPP’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 28 May 2004 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. While it does appear that the
applicant’s performance was not superior during her last rating
period, we noted the wing commander’s investigation into her
allegations of discrimination and we believe that some form of relief
is warranted. In this regard, we note that the wing commander has
allowed her to reenlist in the ANG for three years and has granted her
a one-year active duty tour. In view of his actions, and noting the
fact that she has over 16 years of service, we recommend that the
records be corrected as indicated below.
______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:
a. On 14 February 2004, she requested an extension to her
active duty tour and her request was approved by competent authority.
b. She was not released from her active duty tour and
discharged from the ANG on 15 February 2004 but on that date she
continued to serve on active duty until 22 March 2004.
c. On 22 March 2004, she was released from active duty and
discharged from the ANG and on 23 March 2004, she reenlisted in the
ANG for a period of three years.
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 15 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
Mr. James E. Short, Member
Mr. Gary G. Sauner, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPP, dated 19 Mar 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
DAVID W. MULGREW
Panel Chair
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC
[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR BC-2004-01205
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 authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. On 14 February 2004, she requested an extension to her
active duty tour and her request was approved by competent authority.
b. She was not released from her active duty tour and
discharged from the ANG on 15 February 2004 but on that date she
continued to serve on active duty until 22 March 2004.
c. On 22 March 2004, she was released from active duty and
discharged from the ANG and on 23 March 2004, she reenlisted in the
ANG for a period of three years.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-00997
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00997 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: ZIMMERMAN & LAVIN HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reinstated in the Texas Air National Guard (TXANG) Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program, effective 15 April 2002, with all pay that was lost (less her subsequent earnings as a civil service technician) or in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01881
He was not able to submit an appeal under these time constraints, as the supporting documentation, frequently requested by his counsel, did not arrive until 28 February 2003, only 11 days prior to his separation. On 8 September 2001 however, a request from his commander that his tour be extended for 120 days due to stop-loss, through 26 January 2002, was approved. On 27 February 2003, counsel requested that the State AG extend the applicant’s tour by 90 days in accordance with ANGI-36-101,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03023
The IG’s investigation was not obligated to determine the validity of Col “W’s” claims of the applicant’s performance but whether or not Col “W” abused his authority by ordering that the two OPR’s be written. He asks that the Board consider the documented record of his performance included in his application instead. In view of the above determination and in an effort to provide the applicant with appropriate relief, we recommend that his records be corrected to show that he was promoted...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03103
He contends the Excellent rating and his eventual non retention for reenlistment in the FLANG were both forms of reprisal because he had filed a Military Equal Opportunity complaint against his supervisor. DPFOC states the rating of Excellent did not seem inappropriate and since it was not written using derogatory terms it should not be considered a referral EPR as indicated by the applicant. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057380C070420
The applicant requests, in effect, that her discharge from active duty in the Army National Guard (ARNG) be voided and that she be given constructive credit for 20 years of active duty military service, with all back pay, allowances, benefits and emoluments. Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant’s records should be corrected to show that she was neither separated from active duty or released from the AGR program on 30 April 1993, nor discharged from the ARNG and USAR on 13 June...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00565
Furthermore, the EOT representative’s failure to interview the applicant during the informal investigation did not prejudice the applicant’s rights because he was interviewed during the formal investigation. f. Interviewing him in the formal investigation does not negate the fact that the informal process was not done correctly. However, since he was interviewed during the formal investigation, we do not believe the failure to interview him during the informal investigation taints the...
Furthermore, the EOT representative’s failure to interview the applicant during the informal investigation did not prejudice the applicant’s rights because he was interviewed during the formal investigation. f. Interviewing him in the formal investigation does not negate the fact that the informal process was not done correctly. However, since he was interviewed during the formal investigation, we do not believe the failure to interview him during the informal investigation taints the...
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...