Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02524
Original file (BC-2012-02524.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02524 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
He  be  credited  with  nonpaid  points  during  the  period  Feb  10 
through Aug 10 (sic) in lieu of his regularly monthly scheduled 
unit training assemblies (UTAs). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  commander  did  not  excuse  his  monthly  scheduled  UTAs  that  he 
was unable to perform due to an injury he incurred while at his 
civilian  employment.    His  injury  required  surgery  and  a  six 
month  recuperation  period.    This  credit  would  enable  him  to 
retire in 2013 rather 2014. 
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  copies  of  a 
letter  from  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs;  his  civilian 
medical provider, and a work release identifying his ability to 
return to work, dated 22 Aug 11. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
Based on the available records, for Retirement Year Ending (RYE)  
9 Sep  11,  the  applicant  was  credited  with  5 active  duty  (AD) 
points,  18  inactive  duty  training  (IDT)  points,  and 
15 membership points and a retirement point total of 38 points.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
NGB/A1PS recommends denial, they found no error or injustice nor 
did the applicant provide any evidence to support his claim. 
 
In  this  respect,  NGB/A1PP  notes,  in  accordance  with  ANGI  36-
2001,  Management  of  Training  and  Operational  Support  Within  the 
Air  National  Guard,  paragraph  6.3.6.  Satisfactory  Performance: 
6.3.6.  1.  Members  must  be  physically  and  mentally  capable  of 
performing  UTA  duty.    Commanders  are  responsible  for  informing 

all  personnel  of  their  respective  units  that  each  member  must 
report any physical or mental condition that might impair their 
performance of duty before they start any UTA.  If the physical 
or  mental  ability  of  a  member  is  questionable  the  professional 
opinion  of  qualified  military  medical  personnel  and  evaluation 
for performance of such training should be obtained. 
 
6.3.6.2.  Unit  commanders  may  grant  excused  absences  to 
individuals who miss a UTA.  Members must be excused in writing 
even  if  the  missed  UTA  will  not  be  performed  in  a  Rescheduled 
UTA  (RUTA),  a  Split  UTA  (SUTA),  or  Equivalent  training  (EQT) 
status.  No more than 4 UTA periods may be made up in a paid EQT 
status in any fiscal year. 
 
6.3.7. With the commander's approval, unexcused absences may be 
made up for retirement points only.  No pay entitlement accrues 
to an individual making up an unexcused absence.  
 
The  applicant  did  not  provide  any  documentation  to  show  a 
professional  opinion  of  a  qualified  military  medical  personnel 
and  evaluation  for  performance  was  accomplished  as  required  in 
accordance with ANGI 36-2001.  The military medical professional 
would have accomplished an AF Form 469,  Duty  Limiting  Condition 
Report  and  AF  Form  422,  Notification  of  Air  Force  Member's 
Qualification Status.   
 
The  member  could  have  submitted  this  documentation  to  his 
commander requesting an excused absence from UTA weekends due to 
his  medical  condition.  With  the  commander's  approval  the 
unexcused absences could have been made up for retirement points 
only.    No  evidence  was  provided  by  the  member  to  show  he 
complied with the provisions of this instruction. 
 
The  complete  NGB/A1PS  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit B. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  30  Aug  12  for  review  and  comment  within  30  days.  
As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been  received  by  this  office 
(Exhibit C). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
 

 

2

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  NGB  office  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  its 
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  material  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-2012-02524  in  Executive  Session  on  15  November  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 May 12, w/atchs.  
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 23 Jul 12, w/atch. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 12. 
 
 
 
 
                                   Panel Chair 
 

 

3

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02176

    Original file (BC-2011-02176.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement; copies of his active duty orders; DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, ending 13 Sep 07 and 3 Sep 10, respectively; AF IMTs 348, Line of Duty Determination, and other supporting documents from his military personnel and servicemember medical records. EXAMINER NOTE: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation and provided the required AF Form 469 and copies of AF Forms 422 and A1PS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03670

    Original file (BC-2012-03670.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Members may be discharged when the member has accumulated nine or more unexcused absences from UTA within a 12-month period. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 26 November 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with 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-2011-04827

    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 | 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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-01525

    Original file (BC-2007-01525.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01525 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Although the applicant is requesting his DD Form 214 be amended, it appears he is actually requesting his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, issued in conjunction with his 9 September 1990 separation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02900

    Original file (BC-2012-02900.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion to Master Sergeant, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airman, states “Prior to promotion to any...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02146

    Original file (BC-2012-02146.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He made every attempt to work with his assigned ANG unit to receive the required points, but was informed that he would not be able to conduct any drill days because he didn’t display a “commitment and clear understanding of how he wanted to proceed as a member of the ANG”. The POC of the previous unit notified the applicant that the unit commander inquired and found no slanderous comments made about the applicant between the two units. Leadership noted that ADLS was not required at the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03451

    Original file (BC-2011-03451.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends his NGB Form 22 be changed to reflect a medical separation and denial of a change to the RE code. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant/counsel on 18 Nov 11 for review and...