RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03628
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his reenlistment
eligibility be changed from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He had four months remaining on his obligation when he was discharged
for non-participation. He contends he was young and stupid at the
time. 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).
He obtained a degree in nursing and is now working with the Veteran’s
Administration (VA) in New Orleans. He would like to be commissioned
as a nurse in the Air Reserve.
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 Louisiana Air National Guard
(LAANG) began his military career in the Regular Air Force on 20 April
1984. He eventually attained the grade of senior airman (SrA). He
left active duty and joined the LAANG effective 13 July 1985. On 9
March 1989, he was recommended for demotion from SrA to Airman First
Class (A1C) due to non-participation. On 15 March 1989, his commander
recommended he be discharged for non-participation under the auspices
of ANG Regulation (ANGR) 39-10. His commander recommended a General,
Under Honorable Conditions (UHC), discharge for incurring 12 unexcused
absences from Unit Training Assemblies (UTA’s) within a 12-month
period. He was offered the opportunity to consult counsel and submit
statements in his behalf, both of which he declined to do. On 5 May
1989, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the discharge proceedings
legally sufficient. Effective 31 May 1989, he was discharged with a
general, (UHC) discharge and was transferred to the USAF Reserve and
assigned to the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC). He was serving
in the grade of A1C and had served for approximately five years.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. DPFOC cites Air National Guard
Regulation (ANGR) 39-10 wherein members may be discharged when the
member has accumulated nine or more unexcused absences from Unit
Training Assemblies (UTA’s) within a 12-month period. DPFOC contends
he admitted he did not attend UTA’s and was consequently processed for
discharge in accordance with applicable regulations. DPFOC contends
no error or injustice occurred in this case.
DPFOC’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8
December 2005 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
National Guard office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. His discharge appears to
have been in compliance with the governing ANGR and we find no
evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air National Guard
was inappropriate. 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-
2004-03628 in Executive Session on 18 January 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 20 Oct 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Dec 05.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01325
He states that three months later he received an informal discharge document that stated “General (under honorable conditions).” The discharge needs to be changed, as he believed himself to be in good standing. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant contracted his enlistment in the -- ANG on 4 November 1987 after voluntarily leaving the Regular Air Force under the Palace Chase program. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00926
He was recommended for discharge for non-participation. In accordance with Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, “…members may be discharged when the member has accumulated nine or more unexcused absences from UTA within a 12-month period.” The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with prescribed directives and the State’s Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03004
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03004 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general, under other than honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant was demoted to A1C with an effective and date of rank of 25 October 1994. DPFP notes also that based on the discharge record...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02977
Applicant was warned of an impending demotion in grade from SRA to Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) as a result of his non-participation. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02977
Applicant was warned of an impending demotion in grade from SRA to Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) as a result of his non-participation. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
On 1 Mar 88, he was honorably discharged and transferred to the Reserve of the Air Force in the grade of senior airman (SrA/E-4). He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on 22 May 1994. Applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard and was demoted to the grade of airman basic (E-1); he was subsequently discharged for unsatisfactory participation and transferred to HQ ARPC on 14 June 1990.
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01031
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 | 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...