Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04257
Original file (BC-2011-04257.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04257 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of 
Transfer or Discharge, reflect “Full Participant or Regular Duty” 
rather than “Training Only Status”. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He operated a theater at Sheppard AFB for eight hours a day in 
direct support of the war effort. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his 
DD Form 214. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force Air National Guard (ANG) 
on 28 June 1968. 

 

On 8 April 1969, the applicant was honorably released from active 
duty and transferred to the ANG State of Tennessee, under the 
provisions of AFM 35-3, Completion of Active Duty Training. He 
served 8 months and 11 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1POE recommends denial. A1POE states the applicant’s 
complaint does not substantiate an error. The applicant was in a 
training status from 28 June 1968 to 8 April 1969, which is 
annotated on the applicant’s DD Form 214, dated 24 April 1970. 
This office was not able to find any documentation in the 
applicant’s master personnel record, nor in the documentation 
provided to validate his claim that he operated a theater at 
Sheppard AFB in direct support of the war effort. 


 

The A1POE complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

NGB/A1PS concurs with the NGB/A1POE advisory and recommends 
denial of the applicant’s request. 

 

The A1PS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 23 March 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant 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. The 
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after reviewing 
the evidence of record, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force offices 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-04257 in Executive Session on 30 May 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04257 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 October 2011, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 9 March 2012. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 12 March 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 March 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04692

    Original file (BC-2011-04692.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04692 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code of 6U (Not Selected for Retention by Commander) be changed to a code that would allow him to reenlist. So should he desire to enlist with another ANG unit, it will not be a barrier to his enlistment. We took notice of the...

  • 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 | 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-2011-00209

    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-2011-03610

    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 | 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 02758

    Original file (BC 2010 02758.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served honorably for 2 years in the Air National Guard (ANG). The NGB/A1PS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 27 Aug 10 for review and comment within 30 days. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03031

    Original file (BC-2012-03031.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    JA states that based on the facts presented in the NGB opinions, JA finds their responses to be legally sufficient and concurs with the recommendations to deny the applicant's requests for corrective action related to ACP payments, Board# V0611A, AGR separation from ANG Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) consideration, and TERA. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit N. _______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01152

    Original file (BC 2009 01152.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-04167

    Original file (BC-2010-04167.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...