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 the Puerto Rico Air National Guard (PRANG) to the Texas ANG
(TXANG). Prior to attending Unit Training Assemblies (UTA’s) with the
TXANG, his company informed him he would have to move to Spain. He
contends he notified his recruiter at the TXANG and was told that
since the TXANG had no investment in the applicant to recoup that he
should go to Spain and resume his military career upon his return to
the United States. He contends the recruiter he worked with left the
TXANG shortly after and he consequently lost his contact with the
TXANG. He was not aware of the action taken against him by the TXANG
for non participation in UTA’s and was never notified by the TXANG.
He gave his contact information to the TXANG recruiter but upon
checking, he found his address had never been updated in the system as
it was reflected Keesler AFB, where he attended technical training
school in 1996. He was not even aware of the reenlistment
ineligibility until he tried to reenlist with the PRANG. He has
always done his best to serve his country in good faith and would like
to do so again.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, a former member of the Puerto Rico ANG (PRANG)
transferred to the TXANG on 21 July 1999 and enlisted for a period of
six years. He was assigned to the 209th Weather Flight at Austin, TX.
He failed to appear for 12 UTA periods and, on 7 November 1999, was
notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the TXANG for
nonparticipation. He was discharged for non-participation effective
24 August 2000 and is considered ineligible to reenlist in the armed
forces.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. DPFOC contends the applicant missed 12
UTA periods and was separated in accordance with Air Force Instruction
(AFI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National
Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, wherein it is stated that members
may be discharged when the member has accumulated nine or more
unexcused absences from UTA within a 12-month period. DPFOC contends
he voluntarily signed a certified letter of notification dated 7
November 1999 acknowledging his understanding of the discharge action.
DPFOC’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
22 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 timely filed.
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 he was not obligated to the TXANG,
in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the Air National Guard. Therefore, we agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard’s 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. Therefore, in
the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2004-02189 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 10 Jul 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 20 May 05, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 July 2005.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-01292
On 25 November 1987, his commander notified him he was being involuntarily discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03048 INDEX CODES: 100.06, 110.02, 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Special Order A1-175, dated 19 Aug 99, honorably discharging him from the Puerto Rico Air National Guard (PRANG) on 19 Aug 99 be invalidated. On 21 March 00, pursuant to its authority over federal labor/management...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01807
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01807 INDEX CODE: 131.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 DEC 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to master sergeant be changed from 5 January 2005 to sometime in October 2004. Therefore, he contends had his promotion recommendation been processed as...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-02632
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 June 1985. Between 4 June 1989 and 3 June 1992 his record indicates service with a Reserve component where he accumulated three satisfactory years of service towards a Reserve retirement – part of which the record shows was spent in the CAANG. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03433
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03433 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM). The ANG notes the PAANG at that time routinely awarded technical training school honor graduates with the Pennsylvania Commendation Medal and would have returned the AF Form 642...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00702
Documentation of this interview will serve as a record of the member's intent to reenlist at ETS as well as the unit commander's selection for reenlistment. DPFOC notes the commander did not recommend the applicant for reenlistment. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-03288
Available records reflect that the applicant received a Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 10 June 1994, from the Commander, Headquarters Texas Air National Guard. They recommend the applicant’s records be changed to show constructive participation as a Reserve Officer for the period of time following separation from the Texas Air National Guard through the Mandatory Separation Date. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are persuaded that the...
Available records reflect that the applicant received a Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 10 June 1994, from the Commander, Headquarters Texas Air National Guard. They recommend the applicant’s records be changed to show constructive participation as a Reserve Officer for the period of time following separation from the Texas Air National Guard through the Mandatory Separation Date. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are persuaded that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02844
He was never informed of and there is no evidence the commander ever rescinded the initial letter of notification of processing for drug abuse with an UOTHC discharge. On 18 August 2002, military counsel responded to his commander’s notification of NJP with a memorandum denying drug use. AFI 36-3209 states “An administrative discharge board must be offered to the respondent if the recommended characterization of service in the letter of notification (LON) is UOTHC.