Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02016
Original file (BC-2009-02016.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-02016
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to his assignment with the Chaplain Support Service  Personnel  (CSSP)
on 8 Mar 98, he was instructed that if his technical school start  date  was
not assigned one year after his enlistment, he  would  have  the  option  to
stay in or leave the Tennessee Air National Guard (TANG).

At one year of service, he was presented the offer to  continue  service  or
separate from the TANG.   He  elected  to  leave  with  the  possibility  of
returning; however, when he tried to  return  he  was  denied  reenlistment.
During his year in service, he reported for duty every  month  and  was  not
discharged because of any other reasons.

He has tried  to  get  clarification  from  the  TANG;  however,  they  only
provided a general description of an Entry Level Separation.  He would  like
to serve in the military and/or become a police officer but  cannot  due  to
his discharge characterization.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a  personal  statement  and
copies of his NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report  of  Separation  and
Record of Service and special orders.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was discharged from the Air National Guard on  2 Mar  99.   He
served 11 months and 25 days.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits B and C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PS recommends  denial  and  concurs  with  the  NGB/A1POE  review  and
comments.

The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit B.

NGB/A1POE recommends denial.  A1POE states the applicant  was  separated  in
accordance with AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement  Procedures  for  Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, Paragraph 3.16,  “Entry  Level
Performance and Conduct.”  Entry level separation is defined  as  “Discharge
from entry level status without service characterization.  This is  complete
severance from all military status gained by  the  enlistment  or  induction
concerned.”  While the applicant states that he reported to duty and  served
as CSSP for one year that service was while he was in an entry-level  status
and is why his service was not characterized.

The complete A1POE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he was not able to contact anyone who worked  with  him
at the time in question.

In addition to his initial request, the applicant also requests  his  status
be changed from “Ineligible” to “Eligible.”

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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  office  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 basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  Additionally, we
note the applicant’s request to change his  reenlistment  eligibility  from
“Ineligible” to “Eligible”; however, this constitutes a  new  request.   As
such, the applicant should submit a DD Form 149, to the Air  Force  address
on  the  back  of  the  form,  along  with  any  supporting  documents  for
consideration by the Board.

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 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  BC-2009-02016  in
Executive Session on 27 Jul 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Vice Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 09, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 11 Mar 10, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 10.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jun 10.




                                   Vice Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03610

    Original file (BC-2011-03610.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This time enclosed was a NGB 22, stating that he was discharged with 5 years and 11 days of service and that he was eligible for reenlistment into the Armed Forces. After reviewing the applicant’s discharge notification package, dated 22 Mar 06, it was validated that the member was recommended for discharge for failing to maintain contact with the unit to schedule a date to attend BMT or attend Unit Training Assembly (UTA) weekends, which constituted substandard performance on the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02538

    Original file (BC-2011-02538.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    When enlisted promotions in the Air National Guard are approved a promotion order is written using the promotion board date as the DOR. As such, there is no way the promotion order would have been published directly after the board convened. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00088

    Original file (BC-2011-00088.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00088 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1POE does not provide a recommendation. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 11.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04184

    Original file (BC-2011-04184.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A1POE states, in accordance with the applicant’s point credit summary, he did not participate in enough UTA days from his initial enlistment date of 20 Sep 2008 to the date of the erroneous discharge, on 1 Aug 2010. ________________________________________________________________ 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;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01428

    Original file (BC-2011-01428.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01428 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service be corrected as follows: 1. There is insufficient justification to support a change of his service characterization to “honorable.” The complete NGB/A1POE evaluation is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05966

    Original file (BC-2012-05966.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05966 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code on his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed from “6U” (Air National Guard (ANG) Not Selected for Retention by the Commander) to “6A” (ANG Eligible to Reenlist/Extend – Selected by...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02258

    Original file (BC-2010-02258.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His promotion to the grade of senior airman (E-4) be adjusted to an effective date of 1 February 2009. AFI 10-201 refers the applicant’s career field to the “Prime Ribs Managers Guide.” The mission capabilities statement that was provided with the applicant’s request is from the guide and states “Specific grades denote SORTS critical positions.” The listing only has two positions that have specific grades; both of them are 7-level AFSCs. We took notice of the applicant's complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00209

    Original file (BC-2011-00209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00209 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code be changed to one that will allow him to re-enter the military. The Medical Consultant lauds the applicant’s desire to once again serve, and the support he has received from his parents, an employer, his youth pastor, and a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04827

    Original file (BC-2011-04827.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04827 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 6H, which denotes “Pending Discharge in accordance with ANGR 39-10 – Involuntary (ANG Only),” be removed from his records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02315

    Original file (BC 2010 02315.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, members are ordered to attend UTA unless they have an authorized excuse for absence. 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 BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...