RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01507
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________
_____
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His ineligible reenlistment eligibility (RE) code on his
NGB Form 22, Department of the Army and Air Force, National
Guard Bureau, Report of Separation and Record of Service,
issued in conjunction with his 31 July 2007 separation from
the Battle Creek Air National Guard (ANG) be changed to
reflect eligible.
___________________________________________________________
_____
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes his RE code is in error because he was offered
the opportunity to seek another military occupation
Specialty (MOS) after failing his 5-level career
development course (CDC). He chose to get out because his
family was moving to another state at the time this was
happening. He had nowhere else to go because he worked for
his father. He is asking for another opportunity to be a
valuable asset to the ANG.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of
his NG Form 22.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________
_____
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted into the ANG on 30 July 2004.
On 31 July 2007, the commander notified the member that he
was being discharged from the ANG under the provisions of
AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, Substandard
(Unsatisfactory) Performance. The commander recommended
the applicant receive an honorable separation. The specific
reasons for this action were: 1) On 5 November 2005, he
failed his End-of-Course exam with a score of 48; 2) On 4
March 2006, he failed the second End-of-Course with a score
of 49.
The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of
discharge, consulted with counsel and waived his right to
submit statements in his own behalf. The base legal office
reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to
support separation. They recommended he be separated with
an honorable separation without probation or
rehabilitation. The discharge authority approved the
separation and directed that he be separated with an
honorable separation without probation or rehabilitation.
On 31 July 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged
from the MI ANG because he failed his end-of-course
examination for his CDC twice. He served three years and
two days of service for pay.
___________________________________________________________
_____
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PS recommends denial. A1PS concurs with the subject
matter expert (SME). The SME states the applicant was
discharged due to substandard performance because he failed
to attain or maintain required job skill proficiency, by
either associated inaptitude or non-application.
AFI 36-3209 states a member may be discharged when it is
determined that the member is unqualified for further
military service due to substandard performance.
The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________
_____
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 27 August 2010 for review and comment within
30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not
received a 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 opinion
and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our
conclusion 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.
___________________________________________________________
_____
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 Docket Number
BC-2010-01507 in Executive Session on 28 October 2010,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 10, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 24 Aug 10, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 25 Aug 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 10.
Panel Chair
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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01432
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01432 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 6H (Pending Discharge-Involuntary) on his National Guard Bureau Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be upgraded so he may reenter the Air National Guard (ANG). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00685
On 3 Aug 10, the Vice Chief of Joint Staff signed an order amending the applicants separation from the ANG and transfer to the Air Force Reserve to reflect his discharge from the WYANG and as a Reserve of the Air Force effective 10 Oct 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, para 2.25.2, ANG Unique Separations. In addition, no one had the authority to discharge the applicant from the Reserve of the Air Force (See SAF/IG Report at Exhibit B). According to AFI 36-3209, the authority to...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04598
The mental health evaluation found the applicant as having an Adjustment Disorder (Axis I: No diagnosis). His diagnosis, by itself, does not automatically disqualify him from flight duties, although it cannot be determined if the Axis II diagnosis of personality trait affects him sufficiently that he cannot qualify to fly military aircraft. Further, the applicant did not have a medical condition that disqualified him from flight duties as an aviator, as noted by the BCMR Medical Advisor.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04132
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends denial, stating, in part, based on information from the subject matter expert (SME), the applicant was discharged in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, para 3.16., Entry Level Performance and Conduct, not a medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00849
Further, AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, states, separate or discharge an ANG member who is not qualified or eligible for worldwide deployment. 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 the applicant has not been...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04167
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04167 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. As such, the applicant was erroneously separated from the Air National Guard and incurred a debt for his reenlistment bonus. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was a member of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03978
We recommend the applicant pursue correction of his record through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. Provided the requested correction is made, we would be willing to reconsider this case to determine the appropriate correction of his Air Force military record. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02412
MRM states that after a review of the available evidence, they note the applicants orders were changed by the orders clerk from will not commute to will commute to allow the applicant to continue on orders until a per diem waiver could be approved. It appears the applicants unit erroneously prepared and amended orders before obtaining the required per diem waiver. ____________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02121
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02121 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated as an F-16 pilot in the Oklahoma Air National Guard, effective 9 Jan 12. (3) In the judgment of the flight examiner, a Q2 may be given if there is justification based on Q- performance in one or several areas/subareas), requiring him...