Bill White, 240.857.3536
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03240
            INDEX CODE:  108.00, 135.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty from November 2002 to May 2003, he  be
medically retired, and he be appointed legal counsel to help him bring
charges against the Michigan Air National Guard (MIANG).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Approximately 25 November 2002, two days prior to  departing  for  the
Middle East, he was asked to surrender his active duty ID card and was
provided with an ANG ID card.  On 29 November 2002, he was supposed to
deploy with the 110th but was placed on a  civilian  flight  two  days
prior.  He was flown into Ryhad (sic), Saudi  Arabia  instead  of  his
military destination and was held in a cell amid human waste  with  no
friendly personnel or other contacts.  He didn’t sleep for days.  When
the war started on 17 March 2002, every person but him got  mobilized.
However, his orders ran out in the war zone.  When he departed theater
he was not given his LOE  as  was  standard  procedure.   He  was  not
processed or given any medical treatment by the unit  and  they  would
not answer his phone calls.  He asked for help and was assigned a  JAG
officer from the 110th but she did nothing but lie  to  him.   He  was
then told from the JAG’s office he would be  placed  back  on  orders,
given 30 days of back pay and be taken care of medically.  During  the
late evening of Father’s Day, he was called by a lieutenant colonel of
the 110th and told in a provocative manner that he was not going to be
reinstated and all else had been denied.  He was then assigned a  non-
commissioned officer (NCO) from the JAG’s office but he heard  nothing
for weeks.  After calling the Inspector General (IG) he was  told  the
JAG NCO was no longer with the JAG and all his files  had  been  lost.
Upon speaking with a general from the 110th he was told “I  guess  you
will have to pursue it won’t you.”  The 110th seized his  luggage  and
returned it after three days with all  the  names  and  phone  numbers
removed.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and copies of a DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or
Discharge from Active Duty, and a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22,
Report of Separation and Record of Service, and a number of pages from
his medical record.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant began his military career with the Regular Air Force  on
3 September 1974.  He served  for  two  years  and  joined  a  Reserve
component on 25 August 1976.  The record shows he did not  participate
from 25 August 1976 to 6  August  1980  when  he  was  transferred  to
civilian status by the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC).  He joined
the MIANG on 28 January 1985 and again the record  shows  he  did  not
participate satisfactorily.  ARPC again transferred  him  to  civilian
status on 28 January 1987.  On 24 November 1993, he rejoined the MIANG
and participated satisfactorily for nine years.  He was  progressively
promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with  a  date  of  rank  of  1
November 1997.  On 31 December 2004, after 11 years,  11  months,  and
22 days of satisfactory service towards a Reserve retirement,  he  was
honorably  discharged  from  the  MIANG  with  a  Separation   Program
Designator Code of FTY, meaning “Resignation for own Convenience.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POF  reviewed   this   application   and   recommended   it   be
administratively closed until such time as the applicant  is  able  to
provide his referenced medical documentation from  the  Department  of
Veteran’s Affairs (DVA).

A1POF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant was unable to provide  an  advisory  and
concludes “Available documentation is  insufficient  to  evaluate  the
applicant’s medical conditions in relation  to  military  service  and
does not support change of records.”

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air National  Guard  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 18 August 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 opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.   As  stated  in  the  aforementioned
advisories, the available documentation is  insufficient  to  evaluate
the applicant’s medical conditions in relation to his military service
and does not support a  change  in  his  records.  Therefore,  in  the
absence of 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-
2005-03240 in  Executive  Session  on  16  February  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Sep 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 11 Aug 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair