RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01325
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be changed to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He notified his supervisor that he needed a leave of absence to deal with being homeless and needing to find full time employment and he received his supervisor’s permission and blessing.  He states that three months later he received an informal discharge document that stated “General (under honorable conditions).”  The discharge needs to be changed, as he believed himself to be in good standing.  He would like to be able to reenlist in the XXXXX Air National Guard (XX ANG) to help protect our country and reap educational benefits the state offers.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his enlistment in the XX ANG on 4 November 1987 after voluntarily leaving the Regular Air Force under the Palace Chase program.  He enlisted in theXX ANG as a Senior Airman (SRA/E-4).  On 14 September 1988, applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge in accordance with ANG Regulation (ANGR) 39-10, Unsatisfactory Participation.  The applicant was involuntarily discharged, effective 1 February 1989, after serving three years, four months, and twenty-six days of combined active and reserve service.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI states that, while the applicant contends he had an approved leave of absence, the XX ANG argues that if the applicant did have an excused absence, it would not have been approved for an indefinite period.  DPPI notes that the applicant made no attempt to return to duty at any time to fulfill his Palace Chase enlistment contract and, in fact, attended no Unit Training Assemblies (UTA’s) from June 1988 until his involuntary discharge on 1 February 1989.  ANGR 39-10 authorizes the involuntary separation of ANG members who accumulate nine or more unexcused absences within a 12-month period.

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 August 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 and while we sympathize with the applicant’s situation at the time, there is simply no evidence presented that effectively disputes that of the Air National Guard office of primary responsibility; subsequently, 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.  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-2003-01325 in Executive Session on 16 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 03. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 5 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.