RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00493
		INDEX CODE:  110.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Block 26 of National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed from “Ineligible” to “Eligible” to reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was forced to retire early due to marital problems.  His ex-spouse is an officer in the South Carolina Air National Guard (SC ANG) and it was easier to retire him than it would be for his ex-spouse.  He would like to be able to continue to serve his country.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his NGB Form 22, the order assigning him to the Retired Reserve, and a point credit history.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant began his military career on 26 June 1973.  He served a total of 28 years, 5 months, and 18 days of combined active and Reserve component service.  He was honorably discharged and transferred to the Retired Reserve on 14 December 2001.  He was a technical sergeant (E-6) at the time of discharge and eligible for Reserve retired pay at age 60.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI states they contacted the SC ANG for additional information regarding his retirement and was told he accepted retirement in lieu of administrative discharge processing.  DPPI notes he was not sent a letter of notification (LON) as required by Air Force Instructions (AFI’s) when an enlisted member is being considered for involuntary separation.  DPPI indicates the SC ANG offered the early retirement option to the applicant prior to formally initiating the administrative discharge action, and prior to formally offering the member the retirement option via an LON.

DPPI includes a Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) memorandum (attached) that provides a record of the circumstances and information available to the commander at the time of applicant’s retirement.  The decision to render an “Ineligible” (to reenlist) was based on the legal opinion of the SJA and was a direct result of the available evidence of applicant’s past performance.  Additionally, in order to be transferred to the Retired Reserve, he had to apply for such via an AF Form 131, Application for Transfer to the Retired Reserve.  

DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air National Guard evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15 November 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting changes to the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case to include his assertion that he was forced to retire early as his ex-wife was also a member of the SC ANG. However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard office 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.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence that would lead us to believe that the discharge action was erroneous, that he was not afforded all the rights to which he was entitled, or that his leadership abused their discretionary authority.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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; and that 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-2003-00493 in Executive Session on 6 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 22 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair