RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02882
INDEX CODE: 110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her active duty performed 15 April 2002 through 11 July 2002, in support of
OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE, be added to her National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22,
Report of Separation/Discharge and Record of Service; her discharge be
upgraded to honorable; her reenlistment code be changed to “eligible; her E-
5 status be restored; and she be transferred to the Individual Ready
Reserve (IRR).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her characterization of discharge is an injustice because it does not take
into account her prior honorable service and solely focuses on one single
event. She accepted her mistake of not paying her government credit card
in a timely fashion, but believes she should have been afforded an
honorable discharge.
In support of her request, the applicant submits copies of her DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Special Orders of
active duty in support of OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE, and a letter of support.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the DD Form 214 provided by the applicant, she entered active
duty with the United States Coast Guard on 26 July 1994 and was honorably
released from active duty effective 11 March 1998 for reason of hardship.
According to the military personnel data system, the applicant enlisted in
the Air National Guard on 15 June 2000 and was promoted to the grade of
senior airman effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 2003.
Special Order AW-322, dated 5 February 2003, indicates the applicant was
released from the Air National Guard with a General (under honorable
conditions) discharge effective 1 February 2003. Her NGB Form 22, National
Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service, indicates the
reason for the applicant’s discharge was for failure to meet financial
obligations and indicated she was ineligible for reenlistment. Special
Order AW-369, dated 24 February 2003, revoked Special Order AW-322 due to
the applicant’s non-judicial punishment proceedings. No other military
records are available.
The remaining relevant facts are provided in the Air Force evaluation at
Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PS recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. A1PS states the
applicant served three years of active duty in the Coast Guard prior to
entering the Air National Guard. Upon transferring and completion of
technical school, she was placed on active duty from 15 April 2002 through
11 July 2002 in support of OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE. In August, she found out
she was pregnant and was having complications. After discussing her
condition with her Chief, she transferred to the IRR. She out-processed
the base and planned on returning after her child’s birth in the summer of
2003. She subsequently signed her discharge package due to her pregnancy
complications.
A1PS states that according to the Subject Matter Expert (SME), the
applicant should have received a DD Form 214 for her service under
OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE; therefore a DD Form 214 will be issued to the
member. However, periods of active duty are not recorded on the NGB Form
22. Regarding the matter of her request to upgrade her discharge
characterization, the SME finds no evidence to support an upgrade. The
reason for the applicant’s discharge characterization was her refusal to
pay her Government Travel Card (GTC) charges of $1,598.15. The comptroller
and GTC Agency Program Coordinator reconfirmed with Bank of America
officials on 26 September 2007 that the debt has never been paid and had to
be charged off as a loss. The applicant has not submitted any evidence to
support an injustice occurred regarding her discharge characterization;
however, it is A1PS’s opinion that an error possibly occurred when the unit
failed to issue a DD Form 214 to document the applicant’s service in
support of OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE.
The A1PF evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12
October 2007 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. We note the office of primary
responsibility indicates the oversight of recording the applicant’s active
duty performed from 15 April 2002 through 11 July 2002, in support of
OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE, will be administratively corrected by issuing a DD
Form 214 to the applicant. Therefore, the Board will only address the
applicant’s remaining concerns. The applicant did not provide persuasive
evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, her
substantial rights were violated, or that her commanders abused their
discretionary authority. The character of discharge which was issued at
the time of the applicant’s separation appears to accurately reflect the
circumstances of her separation and we do not find it to be in error or
unjust. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 this application in Executive
Session on 21 December 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Audrey Y. Davis, Member
Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-02882:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 5 Oct 07, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 12 Oct 07.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01440
A1POFC states the applicant was discharged from the Florida National Guard (FLANG) on 30 April 2004 for misuse of his government travel credit card. No evidence exists that DD Forms 214 were issued for this service. The complete A1POF evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant's Counsel responded stating he does not believe the FLANG letter appreciates the mitigating circumstances...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02491
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 an error or injustice. Evidence has been presented that his unit requested he be removed from the October 1997 SRA/E-4 promotion order due to unsatisfactory participation, and he was subsequently...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00306
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 an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2009-00306 in Executive Session on 7 April 2009,...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03365
His commander denied the request by the Secretary of the Air Force’s (SECAF’s) resolution of his application for transfer to the Retired Reserve. On 29 June 2004, HQ USAF/JAG found his package legally sufficient and recommended he be transferred to the Retired Reserve with the caveat that the SECAF determine his retirement grade. It appears the time period noted on the AFF IMT 642 was during 2002 when the applicant was working with the ANG Crisis Action Team (CAT) at the National...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02768
After being successful in reenlisting in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR), he subsequently transferred back to his former unit with sufficient retainability for promotion; however, he was still not recommended for promotion. 2) His unit commander took him back on the basis that he would deploy and not be at the unit. However, since he was a member of the Air Force Reserve, the squadron commander of the unit he was assigned to (not the TDY commander) could have recommended him...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03274
The date of rank for promotion on the captain’s list will be the date the officers complete two years time in grade or upon the Secretary of Defense’s approval, or upon the public release date, whichever is later. Regardless of the fact that the applicant completed two years TIG for promotion on 22 Nov 06, he could not be promoted until 24 Jan 07, the date of public release. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018261C070206
The applicant provides documentation on another Soldier who graduated in March 2003, from the same OCS Course M01 on 7 March 2003, was order to active duty in support of Operation Noble Eagle, as was the applicant, however the other Soldier was appointed as a second lieutenant on 7 March 2003 the day they graduated from OCS, and was promoted to first lieutenant on 7 March 2005. In the processing of this case an Advisory Opinion was obtained from the Department of the Army, National Guard...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02900
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends denial of the applicants request for promotion to Master Sergeant, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airman, states Prior to promotion to any...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03478
She contends her DOR should be the date she became eligible. Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36- 2502, Promotion of Airman, explicitly states that “…the immediate commander must first recommend the airman.” This recommendation must be based on a period of time to allow sufficient evaluation of the member’s performance. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01112
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01112 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 6H, which denotes (Air National Guard (ANG) pending discharge in accordance with ANGR 39-10 involuntary) be changed to an eligible code. ...