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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
As a military trainee from the Delaware Air National Guard (DEANG)
attending Basic Military Training (BMT), instructors and associate
personnel harassed him while he was going through BMT. He feels he
was racially discriminated against and was treated unfairly. Had he
known the ramifications of leaving BMT under the conditions he left
in, he would have stayed. He was never told he would be discharged
and not be allowed to reenlist.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement, copies of his discharge paperwork from the DEANG including
an order, copies of his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of
Separation and Record of Service, and copies of his subsequent
complaint through Air Education & Training Command (AETC) Inspector
General Complaint Resolution Division (AETC/IGQ).
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the DEANG on 25 May 2005 and attended BMT
beginning 15 June 2005. He presented to the Behavioral Analysis
Service (BAS) of Wilford Hall Medical Center on 29 June 2005 where he
expressed suicidal ideations during his evaluation either through an
overdose of pills or by cutting himself with his razor. He admitted
to being afraid of these thoughts and consequently believed that BMT
was too much for him to handle. He was diagnosed with Adjustment
Disorder with Anxiety. The BAS stated his diagnosis did not meet
retention standards for continued military service and recommended he
be returned to his command for administrative separation. He returned
to the DEANG and was subsequently separated on 7 July 2005 with an
entry level discharge and an RE code of “Ineligible”. He had served a
total of 1 month and 14 days.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1POF recommends denial. A1POF states he was discharged from the
DEANG as a result of an Air Force Evaluation Report of his BMT
experience and performance. His discharge and ineligibility to
reenlist are both correct and in accordance with Air Force Instruction
(AFI) 36-3209.
A1POF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7
April 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. 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 that the discharge was
in compliance with the governing AFI. We find no evidence of error in
this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has
been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he
has suffered from an injustice. Therefore, based on the available
evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider
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-
2005-02983 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 21 Sep 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 3 Apr 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 06.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03053
The State HQ based their denial of his promotion on ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2502, wherein it is stated members on 4-P (permanent) medical status are not eligible for promotion consideration. A1POF contends he was denied promotion on 6 February 2004 by the TXANG as he was ineligible in accordance with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members. ...
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-2005-03913
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02719
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. 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. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Mar 06.
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02974
He had been promoted to the Reserve grade of major in 1997 and had retained that rank up to his transfer to the Retired Reserve. On 3 November 2003, he applied for transfer to the Retired Reserve. _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-01562
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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03580
Additionally, because he was considered a two-time passover for promotion to lieutenant colonel, he was notified he would be retired as required by law effective 1 April 2001. He did not complete the training because of his retirement from military service effective 1 April 2001. The particular member was never the applicant’s supervisor and his duties and responsibilities at the time were far- removed from the applicants.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03242
In this case, the applicant indicated his urinary incontinence was exacerbated by over-hydrating during the day and he should be granted a waiver to continue his service. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant argues that the only time he should have been prevented from participating in his graduation was during the time he was experiencing...