RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01050
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His administrative separation for Pattern of Misconduct be changed to administrative separation for Non-Participation.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told, at separation, by his commanding officer (CO) to reapply to the Air Force Reserve (AFRES).  He had experienced grave financial problems that led him to a decision between rent and the transportation needed to get him to his Unit Training Assemblies (UTA’s).  He was just inside the commuting distance required that would allow him lodging while at UTA.  He realizes he made some bad decisions but three years have gone by and he feels he has learned his lesson.  He would like the narrative reason for his discharge changed to allow him to enter the AFRES.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

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.  He was discharged with a General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge for a Pattern of Misconduct. 
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  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.  DPPI states that though the appearance may be that the applicant was discharged for non-participation only, the statement from the NJ ANG ESSO asserts the applicant failed to attend UTA’s in a satisfactory manner and adds that he did not progress in his upgrade training; he had problems with his government travel card and often failed to communicate his whereabouts to his chain of command making it sometimes impossible to contact him.  The ESSO adds the applicant never officially out-processed from the NJ ANG and still possesses equipment that belongs to the government.  DPPI states a discharge order was provided as evidence the member was separated with a “General, Under Honorable Conditions” discharge which suggests the unit completed an administrative separation action which required an approved Judge Advocate discharge package.  

DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachment, 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 31 October 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 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 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 Air Force 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.  The comments of the Air Executive Officer for the NJ ANG indicate that a pattern of misconduct indeed existed, in conjunction with his unsatisfactory participation, which appears to justify the type of discharge he received.  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-2003-01050 in Executive Session on 10 December 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 03, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 6 Oct 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.

                                   
                                   Chair