RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01525
            INDEX CODE:  100.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Although the applicant is requesting his DD Form 214 be amended, it  appears
he is actually requesting his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation  and  Record
of Service, issued in conjunction with his 9 September  1990  separation  be
amended in item 26 – Reenlistment Eligibility  to  reflect  eligible  rather
than ineligible.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He requested a hardship discharge to the Ready Reserves due to both  parents
being diagnosed with cancer.  It was explained  to  him  that  he  would  be
eligible for reenlistment in the future once his  Ready  Reserve  commitment
was completed.  He was never out processed and never  signed  any  paperwork
reflecting  his  status  as   ineligible.    He   received   no   registered
documentation from the  Air  National  Guard  or  the  Air  Force  as  being
officially discharged.  He now desires to reenlist.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a  copy  of  his  DD  Form
214, NGB Form 22, and AF Form 526, ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summary.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the West  Virginia  Air  National  Guard  on  15 April
1987.  On 24 April 1987, he entered active duty to complete  initial  active
duty  training  and  on  23  July  1987  he  was  honorably  released  after
completion of his training.  The DD Form 214 issued in conjunction with  his
23  July  1987  release  from  active  duty  indicates  “NA”  in  item   27,
Reenlistment Code.

On 5 May 1990, applicant was notified by his  commander  of  his  intent  to
demote him from airman first class to the grade  of  airman.   The  specific
reason for this action was  applicant’s  failure  to  attend  Unit  Training
Assemblies (UTAs).  He received a total of  nine  unexcused  absences  since
August 1989.  On that same date the applicant concurred  with  the  demotion
action.
On 18 June 1990, applicant was notified by his commander of  his  intent  to
recommend he be  discharged  from  the  West  Virginia  Air  National  Guard
according to ANGR 39-10, chapter 5.  The specific  reason  for  this  action
was his unsatisfactory participation in scheduled UTAs.  He was  advised  of
his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  on
that same date.  The applicant waived his  right  to  a  hearing  before  an
administrative discharge board.  In a legal review of  the  case  file,  the
staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient.  On 20 August  1990,
the discharge authority concurred  with  the  recommendations  and  directed
that  he  be  discharged  with  a  general  (under   honorable   conditions)
discharge.  Applicant was discharged on 9 September 1990.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POFM recommends denial.  A1POFM states the  applicant  was  discharged
from the West Virginia Air National Guard for unsatisfactory  participation.
 Members discharged for hardship may be considered for  further  service  if
the condition that created the hardship has been  resolved.   Unsatisfactory
participants are not eligible for further service and are not considered  to
be eligible for a waiver for entry into the Air National  Guard.   There  is
no error or injustice in this case.

NGB/A1POFM’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

NGB/A1PS recommends denial.  A1PS states the applicant  was  discharged  for
unsatisfactory participation.  Unsatisfactory participants are not  eligible
for further service and are not considered to be eligible for a  waiver  for
entry into the ANG.  A1PS concurs with A1POFM’s recommendation.

NGB/A1PS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 January 2008, the  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment within 30 days  (Exhibit  D).   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 an error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of  record
and  the  applicant’s  submission,  it  is  our  opinion  that   given   the
circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air  National  Guard,  the
reenlistment eligibility assigned appears to be  proper  and  in  compliance
with the  appropriate  directives.   The  applicant  has  not  provided  any
evidence which would lead us to  believe  otherwise.   Therefore,  we  agree
with  the  opinion  and   recommendation   of   the   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.
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 involved.  Therefore, the request  for
a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2007-
01525 in Executive Session on 13 February 2008, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
                 Ms. Barbara J. Barger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 April 2007, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1POFM, dated 22 October 2007, w/atchs.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 18 December 2007.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 January 2008.




                 JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                 Panel Chair