RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04322
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be
upgraded to Honorable.
2. He be reinstated to the rank of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his discharge, he was under a tremendous amount
of stress with graduate school and his mothers health issues.
Additionally, he was the accounting manager for a company that
was failing. Due to these circumstances, he could no longer
attend the necessary weekend drills in order to remain in good
standings.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a
Notification of Discharge Action, memorandum and a continuation
statement from his DD Form 149, Application for Correction of
Military Record.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 2 Nov 91, the applicant enlisted in the Missouri Air National
Guard (ANG).
On 17 May 00, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of
enlisting in the ANG in another state. He was credited with
8 years, 6 months, and 16 days of total service. On 18 May 00,
the applicant enlisted in the Illinois ANG.
On 5 Nov 00, the applicant was demoted to the rank of senior
airman (E-4), with a date of rank of 5 Nov 00, for
unsatisfactory participation.
On 4 Jun 01, the applicant received a general discharge for
unsatisfactory participation and minor disciplinary infractions.
He was credited with nine years, seven months, and three days of
total service.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an
error or an injustice. The applicant did not fulfill his
military service obligation and there is no evidence to support
his claim. He admitted that he did not attend the necessary
drills and attempted to be released from his commander, but his
request was disapproved. The unexcused absences led to his
discharge.
A complete copy of the A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 14 Nov 13 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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 injustice. After a
thorough review of the available evidence and the applicants
complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us
that the applicants records should be corrected to show that he
was reinstated to the grade of SSgt. The applicant has not
provided any evidence to show that his demotion to the grade of
SrA effective 5 Nov 00, was in error or that his commander
lacked the authority to do so. Therefore we find no basis to
act on this portion of his request. Regarding his request to
upgrade his discharge to honorable, based on the available
evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with
the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and
within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant
has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the
characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions
of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate
to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we
considered upgrading the characterization of the applicants
discharge based on clemency; however, after considering his
overall record of service, the infractions which led to his
administrative separation and the lack of post-service
documentation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on this
basis is warranted. Therefore, in view of the above and in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which
to recommend granting the relief sought.
________________________________________________________________
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-2013-04322 in Executive Session on 26 Jun 14, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Sep 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 17 Oct 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Nov 13.
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01276
However, as of Jan 14, there was no record of the Article 15 action. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM did not provide a recommendation; however, they noted the applicants request should be forwarded to the Air Force Personnel Center to have her DOR reviewed. Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 9 Feb 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04833
AFI 36- 3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for ANG and Air Force Reserve Members, states if a member has not fulfilled their military service obligation they may be discharged for unsatisfactory participation when the commander concerned has determined that the individual has no potential for useful service under conditions of full mobilization. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00824
According to Special Order (SO) A-7, dated 6 Oct 06, on 15 Oct 06, The Adjutant General (TAG) of Pennsylvania Air National Guard (PA ANG), demoted the applicant to the grade of MSgt for failure to fulfill his Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) responsibilities. According to a memorandum, dated 10 Oct 13, from TAG, the denied the applicants appeal, dated 21 Aug 13, and determined that his appeal was untimely based on his submission 6 years after the events occurred. Further, while we note...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05912
In addition, the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG DoD/MRI) concurred with the determination, approved the report, and substantiated the allegations (Exhibit B). We note that based on the Report of Investigation (ROI) from the SAF/IG the applicant was the victim of reprisal under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034) by his former commander who denied his reenlistment and attendance at the Chief Executive Course (CEC). Other than the comments in the ROI, the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01215
On 4 Dec 02, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendation for discharge and the applicant was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) character of service and a reason for discharge of conduct prejudicial to good order in Feb 03. A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He submits a personal statement describing some of the harassment...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00027
On 20 Nov 13, the applicant was promoted to the grade of E-3. As such, he was never eligible for promotion to the grade of E-3, effective 21 Jun 13, as requested. A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP additional evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He argues a change to the FY13, R&R Initiatives added his AFSC 2T2X1 to the critical skills AFSC list, effective 1 Oct 12, as verified through his Force Support Squadron (FSS).
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05285
According to Mil Form 88, Record of Proceedings under Article 15, WCMJ, on 17 June 2010, the Assistant Adjutant General imposed nonjudicial punishment on the applicant who was reduced from the rank of MSgt to the rank of SSgt effective 17 June 2010. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a memorandum dated 6 January 2014, NGB/A1PP recommends correcting the applicants records to reflect his retirement rank as TSgt. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01102
A1PP states that according to the NGB Form 22, the applicant was separated with a general, under honorable conditions discharge due to misconduct. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). 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 that the applicant has not been the victim...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03156
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03156 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The applicant submitted a DD Form 214 and while her entire ANG time is supported by her enlistment document, and Discharge Certificate, only certain periods of active duty are authorized to be entered on the DD Form 214. We took...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02087
On 24 February 2012, the applicant received notification from the unit wing commander that he was recommending her for demotion to the grade of E-4, Senior Airman. Their interpretation of the instruction is the unit commander may recommend demotion of an enlisted ANG member under his/her command. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application BC-2012-02087 in Executive Session on 23 January 2013, under...