RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03166
INDEX CODE: 108.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her discharge characterization be changed to honorable associated with
a medical condition so that she may have the opportunity to reenlist
as her condition improves.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She never wanted to voluntarily leave the military. Her service
record shows how much she enjoyed her military career and how well she
and her military teammates worked together. She contends she had two
surgeries on her back with associated staph infections that
complicated her healing and caused further damage to her back. She
states she had been working towards a commission in the military and
had plans to move to Delaware to accept an appointment as a nurse.
She has numerous notes, doctor’s reports, and other medical
documentation that she can forward to the Board if necessary.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement and copies of her civilian medical records, letters of
support, job-related paperwork, results of medical treatments, several
certificates, and some of her discharge paperwork.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted with the New Jersey Air National Guard (NJANG)
on 22 July 1987 as a medical apprentice. On 16 November 1988, she was
transferred to the Nonaffiliated Reserve Section. On 12 August 1989,
she returned to service with the NJANG as a medical technician and was
progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant. On 18 May
1995, she was awarded a Baccalaureate degree in nursing. Her civilian
position was as a Registered Nurse (RN). On 17 January 2003, her
commander notified her of his intent to discharge her for
Nonparticipation. She was separated with a general, under honorable
conditions discharge effective 15 February 2003. She served 11 years,
3 months, and 24 days of service for pay.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. DPFOC contends the characterization of
service she has applied for does not exist. DPFOC notes she probably
should have applied for an honorable discharge, however, even if she
had, she has not presented any proof at this time that her
unsatisfactory participation was connected to a medical condition,
i.e. physical profile (AF Form 422), evidence of contact with her
supervisor, first sergeant, or commander, or evidence in her defense
provided by legal counsel during the administrative discharge process.
In short, she has not provided any documents to support her claim and
an error or injustice have occurred.
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
17 February 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 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 probable error or injustice. After thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant's
contentions, we are not persuaded that she was unfit for military
service during the time she was not attending required Unit Training
Assemblies (UTA’s). Since she has provided no evidence at this time
that her unsatisfactory participation was connected to a medical
problem, we believe she has not overcome the presumption of fitness.
The discharge for nonparticipation appears to be in compliance with
the governing AFI and we find no evidence to indicate that her
separation from the Air National Guard and characterization of service
was inappropriate. 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 she has suffered
from an injustice. Therefore, based on the available evidence of
record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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-
2005-03166 in Executive Session on 28 March 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 6 Feb 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 06.
JAY H. JORDAN
Panel Chair
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-03281
As the OPR’s were not completed in accordance with governing Instructions and were not timely, she was forced to meet a mandatory promotion board instead of qualifying for a Position Vacancy (PV) promotion to major. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the ANG advisory cites a paragraph from ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2504, Federal Recognition Of Promotion In The Air National Guard And As A Reserve Of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00075
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00075 INDEX CODE: 108.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 July 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Special Form 502, Narrative Summary (Clinical Resume), signed on 9 April 2003 be corrected to reflect he did inform military authorities of an injury he received while on temporary duty...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01329
The applicant’s squadron commander made the recommendation to the Air Wing commander. On 13 October 2000, her commander notified her of his intent to impose NJP and to discharge her from the NYANG for violating NY State law by wrongfully using THC, a controlled substance. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant contends the cutoff level for determining a...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02123
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While on active duty with the Regular Air Force, he was promoted to captain and given a promotion line number based on 17 August 1992. Further, if his request to change his DOR was ultimately to entitle him to meet the FY07 ANG mandatory promotion board, then his current DOR to major of 6 February 2000 meets the time in grade requirements and qualifies him to meet the FY07 ANG mandatory board. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00007
Had he met the UV Board he would have been promoted to major effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 15 March 2002. c. His date of rank to captain was 21 September 1988 and not 24 June 1995 as noted in his military record. DPFOC state’s as they are unable to confirm that his promotion date should be changed from 1 October 2002 to 15 March 2002, they conclude the proper procedures were followed in his submission for mandatory (ROPMA) promotion. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02132
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was on terminal leave at the time the Captain’s Promotion Board met and was not able to meet the Board. 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 Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02549
He appealed and a deal was struck between himself, the SJA and the Wing Commander (WG/CC) that he would meet the next scheduled promotion board in March 2002 and, if selected, and if he made progress in the weight management program, his DOR could be changed to reflect an earlier DOR. Regarding the referral OPR and other issues besides his request to backdate his DOR he notes he qualifies for the requested remedies from the AFBCMR without actually appealing the OPR. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02552
He was told he was eligible for a board hearing of his peers, but that if he would sign the demotion paperwork, he would be demoted with the understanding the Wing Commander could reinstate his grade to MSgt at any time. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In regards to the applicant’s claim he would have requested a board hearing had he known his DOR would have changed, DPFOC contends ANGI 36-2503 does not offer the opportunity for those demoted to appear before a board. The office responsible...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01517
She was not allowed to take her earned leave as she was required to work as a clinical nurse (full- time) as well as the administrative nurse. Therefore, they found no compelling evidence suggesting applicant was unable to use six days of leave throughout FY02 and six days throughout FY03, and concluded the leave lost was not an error or injustice caused by the Air Force. HQ AFPC/DPSO’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.