RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01432
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 6H (Pending
Discharge-Involuntary) on his National Guard Bureau Form 22,
Report of Separation and Record of Service, be upgraded so he
may reenter the Air National Guard (ANG).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should be allowed the opportunity to finish his career in the
ANG because he has an honorable character of service.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the ANG on 31 Aug 05.
On 21 May 12, the applicants commander notified him he was
recommending him for involuntary separation IAW AFI 36-3209,
Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and
Air Force Reserve Members, for twice failing to progress in on
the job training and his Career Development Course (CDC).
On 20 Aug 12, the discharge was found legally sufficient.
On 11 Oct 12, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge
for substandard (unsatisfactory) performance and was credited
with 7 years, 1 month, and 11 days of Reserve service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an
error or an injustice. The applicant was involuntary discharged
for twice failing his 5-level CDC exams; he also had a history
of CDC failure in his previous specialty. The applicant failed
to acknowledge receipt of the certified letter of notification
within the five-day time period, as the letter was returned to
the unit as unclaimed. Therefore, the matter was legally
sufficient to proceed with the discharge. Additionally, he
demonstrated issues meeting standards regarding the non-drug
policy. He admitted to taking prescription drugs that were not
prescribed to him while deployed in . Although it was
believed the member did not abuse the drugs and only used them
to relieve pain, he still was guilty of illegally using
prescription drugs.
A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant describes the details of his separation and
provides two letters of recommendation supporting his request to
rejoin the ANG. First, as for his lack of preparedness for his
CDC exam, his CDC books were inadvertently shipped to Iraq
instead of New Jersey and unavailable to him for over seven
months. He acknowledges his role in properly preparing for the
exam and exhibits enthusiasm for a chance to retest and perform
to Air Force standards. Second, he accepts responsibility for
the prescription drug use incident and describes the
circumstances that led to it. Finally, he loved his service in
the ANG and has a strong desire to complete a full career as a
Guardsman. He has many positive accomplishments, both within
his military career and as a youth mentor in the local
community. Additionally, the two supporting letters reflect
favorably on his duty performance, integrity, and character of
his service; they both fully support the applicants reenty into
the New Jersey ANG (Exhibit E).
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an injustice. After a thorough
review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete
submission, we believe the applicant is the victim of an
injustice. While we note the comments of the Air Force office
of primary responsibility indicating that relief should be
denied because there was a legitimate basis for his discharge
and no evidence that it was carried out in contravention with
the governing instructions, we believe a preponderance of the
evidence substantiates that corrective action is warranted. In
this respect, we note the applicants personal statements
accepting responsibility for his actions, as well as numerous
supporting statements from coworkers and his former commander,
is sufficient evidence to change his RE code to 3K (Secretarial
Authority). While there is no evidence that an error on the
part of the Air Force contributed to the applicants
predicament, given the unequivocal support of the commander in
supporting the applicants return to the New Jersey Air National
Guard, we believe it would be in the interest of justice to
recommend relief be granted. Therefore, we recommend the
applicants records be corrected as indicated below.
4. The applicants case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code, issued in conjunction with
his 11 October 2012 honorable discharge, be changed to 3K
(Secretarial Authority).
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-01432 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 14 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, NGB/A1PP, dated 8 May 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 14.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Jul 14, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01112
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01112 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 6H, which denotes (Air National Guard (ANG) pending discharge in accordance with ANGR 39-10 involuntary) be changed to an eligible code. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05226
The complete NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit D. NGB/A1PF does not provide a recommendation but states that upon review of the applicants debt generated against his Aviator Continuation Pay agreement, they have concluded that, as it currently stands, the debt is valid. Additionally, the applicant has not provided supporting documentation to establish a basis to extend his MSD or show that he was treated in an unjust manner with respect to his promotion and repayment of ACP. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00614
Giving the circumstances surrounding the reason for his separation coupled with his honorable service characterization, we believe that a good probability exists that he may be able to provide effective and meaningful service to our nation as a member of the armed forces. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 28 Sep 10, he was discharged with a RE code of 3K (Secretarial Authority). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01507
On 31 July 2007, the commander notified the member that he was being discharged from the ANG under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, Substandard (Unsatisfactory) Performance. On 31 July 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged from the MI ANG because he failed his end-of-course examination for his CDC twice. ___________________________________________________________ _____ The following members of...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03031
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. Counsels complete response is at Exhibit N. _______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00685
On 3 Aug 10, the Vice Chief of Joint Staff signed an order amending the applicants separation from the ANG and transfer to the Air Force Reserve to reflect his discharge from the WYANG and as a Reserve of the Air Force effective 10 Oct 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, para 2.25.2, ANG Unique Separations. In addition, no one had the authority to discharge the applicant from the Reserve of the Air Force (See SAF/IG Report at Exhibit B). According to AFI 36-3209, the authority to...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01312
In support of her request, the applicant provides a counsels brief, copies of the paralegal interview, a request for reconsideration into the paralegal career field, paralegal accession disapproval, and letters of recommendation. Her legal counsel stated that four years is sufficient time to recoup its training investment in the Air Force; however, non-prior service ANG members are required to enlist for six years, not four, in accordance with ANGI 36-2002, Enlistment and Reenlistment in...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01911
At the time she was discharged she had no idea that she was permanently disqualified from reentering a military service. The medical discharge is a false representation of her service in the Air National Guard (ANG). The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 20 Dec 12 for review and comment within 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01621
After she filed a complaint through the Air National Guard Inspector General’s Office (ANG/IG) concerning abuse of authority by ANG/OM, the LOR was removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the Chief of Organizational Support, Air National Guard Readiness Center, the applicant, while serving in the Maryland ANG on a Title 10 United States Code active duty tour, received an LOR on 8 October 2002 for twice...
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...