RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01426
		INDEX CODE:  100.03, 110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable, his reenlistment (RE) code be changed to eligible, the reason for discharge be changed to Convenience of the Government, he be given a pay grade and rank increase from Senior Airman (SRA/E-4) to Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5), and his discharge be backdated to 22 December 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His civilian employer required a letter from his commander as proof that he was attending Unit Training Assembly’s (UTA’s).  The commander refused insisting that the UTA calendar would suffice.  Applicant contends his brother-in-law was injured in a construction accident and he felt bound to help his wife provide care for her brother as they had two small children.  Due to personal and financial problems, he was compelled to ask his commander for a reassignment, which the commander denied.  He tried to reschedule his UTA attendance but was finally forced to choose his civilian employment over his Air National Guard (ANG) commitment as his civilian position paid more.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement, copies of correspondence between himself and his civilian employer regarding verification of UTA attendance, several certificates of achievement, and copies of discharge documents from the US Navy and the ANG.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his enlistment in the ---- ANG (-- ANG) on 26 April 2000 as a Senior Airman.  Applicant failed to attend 28 consecutive UTA periods from August 2000 through February 2001.  Each weekend of duty constitutes four UTA’s.  Applicant’s commander initiated discharge action against the applicant, in accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3209, on 10 December 2000 for Unsatisfactory Participation.  The commander recommended the applicant be discharged with a general, (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge action on 10 February 2001.  He noted his right to submit statements and consult counsel but waived his right to both, as he wanted to expedite the discharge process in order to enlist in the Navy Reserve.  The discharge was found legally sufficient on 29 March 2001 and the applicant was duly discharged effective 15 April 2001 with 11 years, 1 month and 29 days of service.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They cite AFI 36-3209, paragraph 3.13.2.1 where it states that ANG members may be discharged for unsatisfactory participation when the member has accumulated nine or more unexcused absences within a 12-month period.  They note that the -- ANG Judge Advocate concurred with the reason for separation, the reenlistment eligibility, and characterization of service.

ANG/DPPF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air National Guard evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 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 timely filed.

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 his situation at the time and appreciate his efforts to care for his family, there was simply no evidence presented that justified granting the requested relief; 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-2003-01426 in Executive Session on 16 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 24 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair