RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04134
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Block 8b, Effective Date, of his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form
22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of
Service; be changed from 30 September 2000 to 7 April 1998.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
According with Air Force Instruction 36-3209, Paragraph 3.13.2, Unsatisfactory Participation, Subparagraph 2.1; a member can be
discharged for failure to attend nine Unit Training Assemblies
(UTA) periods. The Nevada Air National Guard (ANG) waited an
excessive amount of nearly three years to discharge him, even
after they received his letter requesting separation.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement and copies of his NGB Form 22, a letter to his
commander, a letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS) cancelling his debt for unpaid Servicemens Group
Life Insurance premiums, and an ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summary.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a current member of the Michigan ANG serving in
the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). While previously serving
with the Nevada ANG, the applicant was discharged for
unsatisfactory participation with a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge due to his failure to attend UTAs.
The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicants
service record, are contained in the evaluation provided by the
Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1POE recommends denial. A1POE states the applicant has
provided no evidence to substantiate an error or injustice. In
referencing the governing AFI, the applicant does not cite the
proper wording of the AFI by indicating a member is discharged
when he/she does not participate for nine UTA periods. AFI 36-
320, Paragraph 3.13.2.1.1, actually states Member may be
discharged when the member has accumulated nine or more unexcused
absences from UTA within a 12-month period. The documents
provided indicate the applicant was given a three month leave of
absence (LOA) in March of 1997 to attend to personal business
and, was due to return to UTAs in July 1997. He failed to return
and was notified of his unexcused absence for the 12-13 July 1997
UTAs. The applicant contacted the unit via e-mail on 28 January
1998 stating that he continued to have personal problems and was
hoping to relocate out of the area. On 9 January 1999, his
commander notified the applicant that another period of LOA had
expired and he was to attend scheduled UTAs. Subsequently, his
commander notified the applicant of his unexcused absences for
the August 1999, September 1999, and October 1999 UTAs (a total
of 6 days/12 periods). On 8 May 2000, his commander notified the
applicant that he was being recommended for discharge from the
ANG for unsatisfactory participation under the provisions of AFI
36-3209, Paragraph 3.13.2., with a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge. The applicant was subsequently discharged
effective 30 September 2000.
It is A1POEs opinion that his commander attempted to work with
the applicant by granting him at least two LOAs in order to
attend to his personal problems. The AFI states a member may be
discharged and does not state the member must be discharged. In
addition, the AFI indicates that members can be discharged when
the commander has determined the individual has no potential for
useful service.
A1POE indicates that after speaking to the applicant, it appears
the real reason for his request is to adjust his service dates so
that he can qualify for a reenlistment bonus.
The complete NGB/A1POE 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 7 January 2011, 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 an 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-04134 in Executive Session on 28 July 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04134:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 8 Dec 10, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 11.
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01152
On 5 October 2005, his commander signed a Notification of Intent to Discharge letter and recommended he be discharged with a general discharge. IAW AFI 36-3209 Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, a member is discharged for unsatisfactory participation when the commander concerned determines a member has no potential for useful service under conditions of full mobilization. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04827
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03346
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03346 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to honorable and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from ineligible to eligible. On 16 July 2001, the applicant's commander notified him that he...
AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2005-00469
The records indicated the applicant received a General Discharge, Under Honorable Conditions, for Unsatisfactory Participation in the Kansas Air National Guard. Naval Reserve from 18 Apr 85 through 7 Jul 97 is 9 yrs 7 months 21 days, of which AMS is 1 yr 3 months 9 days (See Army and Navy Annual Statements and AF Forms 526 for TMS and TAMS numbers) . (Change Discharge to Honorable, and Change the RE Code, Reason and Authority for Discharge) ISSUES ATTACHED TO BRIEF.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03037
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03037 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC), discharge be upgraded to honorable. As a result, on 23 May 1982, a review panel made up of members from the HQ --- National Guard reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended he be...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Hawaii National Guard on 24 July 1990, in the grade airman basic for four years. On 6 March 1992, applicant was promoted to the grade of senior airman. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency AFBCMR 98-01672 MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY, SAF/MIB SUBJECT: Minority Report on BCMR Case of APPLICANT I am not in agreement with the majority...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2006-00028
EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-IWZ AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE Nl1b1BER FD~2006~00028 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed. - k.- .Cmsplt legal counsel.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01426
The commander recommended the applicant be discharged with a general, (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and while we sympathize with his situation at the time and appreciate his efforts to care for his family, there was simply no evidence presented that justified granting the requested relief; subsequently, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard office of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02977
Applicant was warned of an impending demotion in grade from SRA to Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) as a result of his non-participation. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02977
Applicant was warned of an impending demotion in grade from SRA to Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) as a result of his non-participation. _________________________________________________________________ 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...