RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02719
INDEX CODE: 136.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His ETS discharge be changed to Retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was supposed to reenlist but his commander denied his reenlistment
and discharged him because he was six pounds over weight. He put in
16 years and 6 months in the Air National Guard and feels he should
have been given the chance to lose the six pounds. He is only trying
to get the things he feels he is entitled to for 16 years and 6 months
of service.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a copy of his
National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record
of Service.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant began military service on 28 December 1977. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant. On
27 December 1983, he was honorably discharged from the Maryland Air
National Guard for Expiration Term of Service (ETS) after having
served for 16 years and 6 months. He was discharged in the grade of
technical sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1OPF recommends denial. A1OPF contends the applicant has failed
to provide documentation to show his discharge was for any other
reason than what is stated on his NGB Form 22: ETS, including weight
management issues.
A1OPF’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
31 March 2006 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After a review of the evidence
of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his
uncorroborated assertion he was discharged for being six pounds
overweight, in and by itself, 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 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. No evidence
was provided to show his discharge was for any reason other than ETS,
specifically his claim of weight management. 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-
2005-02719 in Executive Session on 16 May 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 22 Mar 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Mar 06.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01371
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01371 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: HARRY KONST HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to reflect 20 years of active duty service, a subsequent active duty retirement, and a pilot bonus he would have received had he been selected for any one of several positions he had applied for but...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03582
A1POF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant agrees with the ANG that his discharge was handled with all applicable regulations, however, the WYANG acted on “bad” information provided by his doctor. He contends he was too young at the age of 38 to have contracted a bipolar disorder and instead asserts he suffered from a “situation” disorder based on many personal changes...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03762
The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) approved his request on 2 May 2005. He submitted two letter’s of Indispensability to NGB and SECAF. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was retired from the Air National Guard effective 1 January 2005 rather than 1 June 2005.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02983
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02983 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to 1C allowing him the opportunity to reenlist. A1POF states he was discharged from the DEANG as a result of an Air Force Evaluation Report of his BMT experience and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03407
There were many inconsistencies with the Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program (WBFMP) measurements taken. On 31 Oct 02, applicant voluntarily retired from the Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant for years of service. DPPRRP states on 18 Dec 01, his request for retirement was denied, although there is no indication in his record that his specific request for retirement in lieu of demotion was forwarded to the SAF as an attachment.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01940
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01940 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Block 26, Reenlistment Eligibility, of his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed to read “Eligible”, rather than “Ineligible.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02692
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02692 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 6H reflected on his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed to allow him to reenter the military. The recommended separation was determined to be legally sufficient and the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an entry level separation....
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00405
He asserted that his weight on entry into the Air Force was "too much" (though he was 20 pounds below the maximum allowed weight), and that he "had a handle" on his weight until his mother's illness (while in fact he exceeded weight standards at least as early as 1990). A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion...
The applicant was found to meet the size standards for entry into SUPT. Based on the recommendation of medical personnel, the commander of the applicant’s flying training squadron authorized a temporary (not to exceed six months) medical deferral for Phase I of the Weight Management Program and the applicant was reentered into training, Class 98-15, on 13 Nov 97. The applicant was notified on the AETC form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, that he was being considered for...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03913
Therefore, he should have been promoted via the Reserve Office Promotion Act (ROPMA) in 1999, his seventh year of time in grade (TIG) as a captain. A1POF states he was, in fact, considered by the fiscal year 2000 (FY00) Air National Guard Major mandatory promotion board and was not selected making him a once-deferred officer. 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...