RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01292
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be changed from general (Under Honorable Conditions) to
Honorable and his rank of staff sergeant (E5) be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His entire service record up to the time he was involuntarily
discharged was considered outstanding. He received service
accommodations, letters of accommodation, promotions, and was a
volunteer for many duties. In 1986 he took a job as a restaurant
chain manager when his area supervisor told him he would lose his job
if he missed any work because of the Air National Guard (ANG). He
subsequently asked his ANG supervisor if he could pull his Unit
training Assemblies (UTA’s) during weekdays. His supervisor told him
the commander would not approve such a schedule. Applicant contends
other airmen were approved for weekday makeups of monthly UTA’s due to
their civilian work schedules. He was notified via mail from his unit
that he would begin to be demoted one stripe for every month of duty
missed. Eventually, he was reduced to airman (E2) and put on the
inactive status list. He was discharged from the West Virginia ANG
(WVANG) six months later in October 1992 with a general(under
honorable conditions) discharge. He was recently notified by his
Veteran’s Administration representative that he could apply to have
his discharge upgraded and his rank restored even though he is
incarcerated. He feels as if he was discriminated against for reasons
unknown at that time.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal,
notarized statement and a copy of DD Form 293, Application for Review
of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant began his military career with the WVANG on 12 September
1982. He attained the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank
(DOR) of 1 October 1985. He began missing UTA’s on 1 August 1987 and
missed 24 UTA’s through 11 January 1987. Consequently, he was demoted
three times for missing UTA’s. On 25 November 1987, his commander
notified him he was being involuntarily discharged with a general
(under honorable conditions) discharge. A legal review found the
discharge within the authority of the commander and legally
sufficient. He was duly discharged for unsatisfactory participation
on 8 February 1988 after having served 5 years, 4 months and 27 days.
His character of service was general (under honorable conditions) and
his reenlistment eligibility was “Eligible.”
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report which is attached
at Exhibit B.
A copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant on 24 August
2005 for review and comment within 15 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. DPFOC states the applicant openly admits
to not participating. DPFOC contends no error or injustice occurred
during the discharge and in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
DPFOC recommends relief be denied
ANG/DPFOC’s complete evaluation 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 July 2005 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. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded
that his uncorroborated assertions of trying to work out an alternate
UTA schedule, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the rationale provided by the Air Natioal Guard. Therefore,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Natioal Guard
office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice. He
received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge after he had
missed 24 UTA’s and was demoted over a six month period from staff
sergeant to airman with no apparent preemptive or constructive action
on his part. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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-
2004-01292 in Executive Session on 27 September 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 6 Jul 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 05.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02189
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02189 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility be changed from “Ineligible” to “Eligible.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He moved to Texas for employment reasons and concurrently transferred from...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01398
He was serving in the grade of technical sergeant and had served 37 years, 6 months, and 22 days for pay at the time of his transfer to the Retired Reserve. Applicant has provided a different promotion recommendation form signed by a different supervisor (along with the same letter of recommendation by the different supervisor). Applicant’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01362
In July 1994, she enlisted in the Air Force Reserve (USAFR) and was assigned to the Security Police Squadron at Westover Air Reserve Base as an SSgt. While she kept her supervisor and squadron informed of her status, she was lax in that she did not follow through by submitting the proper paperwork that would have put her in an inactive status until her Expiration Term of Service (ETS) in July 2000. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03628
He notes he had served with the Regular Air Force for a year and three months prior to serving with the Air National Guard (ANG). _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a former member of the Louisiana Air National Guard (LAANG) began his military career in the Regular Air Force on 20 April 1984. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03580
Therefore, DPFOC specifically recommends denial of his request to reenlist, to be restored to the grade of TSgt, consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt), and his request for a discharge certificate. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertion of command retribution denying him reenlistment, in and by itself, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03166
Her service record shows how much she enjoyed her military career and how well she and her military teammates worked together. DPFOC contends the characterization of service she has applied for does not exist. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03307
The letter asked that he call and he did so numerous times, but received no answer. He returned to duty with the ANG on 20 November 1984 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 1994. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While the applicant appreciates the ANG’s recommendation that his former grade be reinstated, he provides evidence he was within weeks or...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02315
In addition, members are ordered to attend UTA unless they have an authorized excuse for absence. Counsel states the applicant absented himself from weekend drills so that he could work other higher paying jobs. However, it should be noted that many traditional guard members give up the opportunity to earn more money on UTA weekends. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-01936
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: With regard to nonjudicial punishment (NJP) he received and the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) he underwent: 1. Regarding his allegation that the FEB considered improper evidence, DPFOC states the NJP and R&CB evidence were proper and relevant to show the procedural standing of the case. DPFOC notes neither the applicant nor counsel objected to this evidence at its presentation.