RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02315 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His rank of E-5 (Staff Sergeant) be restored. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was reduced to the grade of E-3 (Airman First Class) because 
he was absent from a number of drills. During the time in 
question, he was faced with dire financial problems and the 
potential of losing his home. His absence from the drills is 
valid. In addition, he requested equivalent training in lieu of 
the drills, but was denied without reason. 

 

He requested approval for excused absence from a number of drills 
so that he could get his personal finances in order. He 
respectfully requested he be allowed to conduct his upcoming 
weekend drills during the week so he could work other jobs during 
the weekend to gain additional income. He planned to use the 
additional income to become current on his mortgage payments. 
Instead of merely approaching his commander with a problem, he 
proposed a solution to the problem. Despite his efforts to 
resolve his financial dilemma without significantly interfering 
with his military duties, his request was denied without 
substantive explanation or reason. He, therefore, made the 
decision to put his family first and absented himself from 
weekend drills so that he could work other higher paying jobs. 
Subsequently, he was able to become current on his mortgage 
payments and save his house for his family. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant submits a six-page 
statement from his counsel and various letters and electronic 
mail messages. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of 
Separation and Record of Service, indicates the applicant was 
discharged from the Air National Guard on 15 Oct 10. He was 
credited with nine years of military service. 

 

On 24 Mar 11, the applicant’s counsel requested the case be 
administratively closed (Exhibit E). On 14 Dec 11, the case was 
reopened, per his counsel’s request. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1POE recommends denial. A1POE notes the following: 

 

 1. On 24 Nov 08, the applicant was notified of the reasons 
why his request to perform Rescheduled Unit Training Assembly 
(RUTA) was denied. He was informed that requests for RUTA would 
not be approved for any individuals that are due any requirements 
(normal UTAs). In addition, the member is required and expected 
to report to drill in accordance with Special Order G-095-DC. 

 

 2. On 5 Dec 08, the applicant notified an official within 
his unit that he would not be present for drill or report for 
duty in April. Members do not determine when/if they will show 
up for a Unit Training Assembly (UTA). In addition, members are 
ordered to attend UTA unless they have an authorized excuse for 
absence. The applicant’s statement that “he could make more 
money working another job rather than report for military duty” 
is not a valid excuse for missing a UTA period. 

 

 3. A1POE opines the applicant’s reasons for not reporting 
to duty are not valid. His financial problems could have 
resulted in the loss of his security clearance. Resources to 
help members with financial problems are available; however, it 
is not known if he queried his supervisor, first sergeant or 
commander for help prior to his receipt of the default 
notifications. 

 

 4. On 18 Feb 09, the applicant was notified of his pending 
discharge from active duty. While counsel argues the applicant 
requested an administrative separation board because there was 
not enough evidence to prove his misconduct, no documentation was 
submitted to substantiate this claim. The discharge action was 
stopped and has no bearing on any other administrative action 
taken, i.e., his demotion. 

 


 5. The applicant received four separate notifications 
concerning missed drills. Counsel states the applicant 
“…absented himself from weekend drills so that he could work 
other higher paying jobs.” However, it should be noted that many 
traditional guard members give up the opportunity to earn more 
money on UTA weekends. The applicant signed a contract to be a 
member of the Air National Guard and was ordered to attend 
drills; however, he chose not to and further did not respond to 
the notifications from his commander. His claim that other 
airmen “…were permitted excused absences…for less serious 
situations…” is not substantiated by facts or evidence to show 
disparate treatment. 

 

 6. The applicant’s response to the intent to demote is not 
included. The notification appears to be sufficient and he was 
provided with legal counsel. The demotion order is correct and 
includes the reasons for his demotion. 

 

The complete A1POE evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

NGB/A1PS concurs with the recommendation provided by A1POE. 

 

A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In his four-page statement, the applicant’s counsel reiterates 
many of his earlier contentions. The applicant never contended 
his financial circumstances excused his attendance at his 
assigned UTA; however, feels he was between a rock and a hard 
place. 

 

His circumstances were misunderstood in regards to the revocation 
of his security clearance. He demonstrated exceptional 
responsibility in remedying his financial circumstances during a 
time which the country faced an unprecedented level of mortgage 
foreclosures. 

 

He is not in the best position to provide documentation to 
support his contention that other airmen were permitted excused 
absences; however, he does provide excerpts from the attendance 
roster. 

 

Despite his nine years of exceptional service, his proactive and 
admirable efforts to save his family and his home resulted in his 
demotion in rank to the grade of E-3 on account of absences 
beyond his control. It is a continued injustice not to restore 
his rank to E-5 when the Board considers the totality of the 
circumstances. 

 

 

 


The counsel’s rebuttal, with attachments is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 careful 
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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice. While counsel argues that it is a continued injustice 
not to restore the applicant’s rank, he has not provided 
persuasive evidence which would lead us to believe that the 
demotion action taken by his commander was overly harsh; beyond 
his scope of authority or that he abused his discretionary 
authority in taking this action. Therefore, we find no basis to 
disturb the record. Counsel states the attendance roster he 
provides demonstrates the applicant was treated differently than 
others similarly situated; however, we do not find it 
sufficiently persuasive in this matter. In view of the totality 
of the circumstance in this case, it is our opinion the applicant 
has failed to sustain his burden of the existence of an error or 
an injustice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in 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 20 Feb 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 


 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2010-02315: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 15 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NBG/A1PS, dated 9 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 24 Mar 11 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 14 Dec 11, 

 w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair