ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02446-2
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded points and attendance credit for all of his Unit Training Assemblies (UTA) during the period May 09 through Mar 12, and he be transferred to the Retired Reserve.
RESUME OF THE CASE:
On 8 May 14, the Board considered and denied the applicants original request that the same corrections be made to his records. In the original case, the applicant contended he was given an illegal order directing him not to attend UTAs after his 19 May 09 arrest for possession of heroin, based upon his argument that to ban him from training while he was undergoing administrative discharge procedures was a defacto discharge without due process. In addition, in his rebuttal he contended that since the Virginia Air National Guard (VA ANG) published a supplement to the applicable Air Force Instruction on 1 Feb 12 which specifically prohibits members in the applicants situation from participating in UTA, this confirms the power to deny his participation in UTAs did not exist in 2009 prior to publication of the AFI supplement. In this case, the Board agreed with the opinion of SAF/MRBP that by the nature of the commanders position and the military structure, the ANG commander did have the authority to issue said order, and that lack of written guidance in an AFI supplement at the time does not render that order illegal. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit I.
On 9 Mar 14, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of his original application, reiterating the same argument that the ANG commander did not have the authority to prevent the applicant from attending UTAs, based upon the rationale previously provided in the rebuttal to the original application that prior to the publication of the AFI supplement, the commander did not have the authority to issue such an order. In support of this contention, the applicant submitted three statements for the record from individuals associated with the VA ANG, attesting to the fact that they were aware of two uniformed members of the VA ANG who had failed drug tests but subsequently had been allowed to continue to serve as members of the VA ANG.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing the evidence in the applicants case, and taking into consideration the additional documentation provided by the applicant, we remain unconvinced that corrective action is warranted. While the Board notes the letters submitted by the applicant which make reference to other unnamed individuals in his organization, the Board will restrict itself to deliberating on the available facts and circumstances associated with the applicants current case. The Board concurs with the determination of the original BCMR panel that due to the nature of the commanders position and the military structure, the ANG commander did have the authority to issue said order, and that lack of written guidance in an AFI supplement at the time does not render that order illegal. Furthermore, the Board does not find these hearsay statements sufficient to conclude that the applicant was deprived of rights to which he was entitled, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or that the applicant was treated differently than others similarly situated. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
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-2013-02446 in Executive Session on 19 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02446 was considered:
Exhibit I. ROP, dated 19 May 14. w/atchs.
Exhibit J. DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 14, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01011
He be reinstated into the Air National Guard (ANG) or as a member of the Air Force Reserve and his records be corrected to reflect he had no break in service. In addition to his lost time, he incurred a financial loss during this period as he was deprived of the income associated with his part-time service in the Air National Guard (ANG). While it is true that in the original iteration of this case, the relief recommended by the Board did not result in the applicant being eligible to...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02844
He was never informed of and there is no evidence the commander ever rescinded the initial letter of notification of processing for drug abuse with an UOTHC discharge. On 18 August 2002, military counsel responded to his commander’s notification of NJP with a memorandum denying drug use. AFI 36-3209 states “An administrative discharge board must be offered to the respondent if the recommended characterization of service in the letter of notification (LON) is UOTHC.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04134
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. The AFI states a member may be discharged and does not state the member must be discharged. We took notice of the applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03004
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03004 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general, under other than honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant was demoted to A1C with an effective and date of rank of 25 October 1994. DPFP notes also that based on the discharge record...
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...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01050
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant's discharge package was missing, however the records show that he was discharged from the New Jersey Air National Guard (NJ ANG) effective 1 October 1999. DPPI states that while no discharge record is available at this time there is sufficient evidence, including a statement from the NJ ANG Executive Staff Support Officer (ESSO), which supports the type of discharge received by the applicant. We...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03307
The letter asked that he call and he did so numerous times, but received no answer. He returned to duty with the ANG on 20 November 1984 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 1994. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While the applicant appreciates the ANG’s recommendation that his former grade be reinstated, he provides evidence he was within weeks or...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03700 ADDENDUM
Excluding him, when the written ACP program never excluded officers occupying API 0 positions and when the AFBCMR and the Director of the ANG approved it retroactively for other API 0 billeted pilots' pre-FYll service, would be a discriminatory application causing error and injustice. Further, NGB does not dispute that the ACP policy as written never excluded API 0 pilots as the Director ANG concluded by approving ACP for some of them in 2010. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01485
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-1485 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to honorable, his prior grade and rank be reinstated, and his reenlistment eligibility be changed to “Eligible.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...