RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03927
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Item 18, Pay Date, located on his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed from 760414 to 740103 and that Item 26, Reenlistment Eligibility, be changed from “Ineligible” to Retired Ready Reserve (RRR) Eligible.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His original entry into the military was on 3 January 1974 (740103) and not as stated on his NGB Form 22.  Further, his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates a Separation Code of LBK, “Completion of Required Service” and his Reenlistment Code shows RE-1A, a code that allows reenlistment.  He contends he was honorably discharged and sought to join the Retired Ready Reserve (RRR).  He has no medical or other disability that would make him ineligible and has served his country for 27 good years.  He contends his pay date has been incorrect since April 1986 and that he should be eligible for the RRR.  He questions whether or not he will receive a correction for underpayment for 17 years.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of an earlier request for records correction, his DD Form 214 and his NGB Form 22, as well as a discharge order and a copy of his driver’s license and his Social Security Card.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a former member of the Washington Air National Guard (WAANG), began his military career on 3 January 1974.  He spent the following five years or so in the US Army.  He was honorably discharged from the Army on 4 December 1979.  He remained in a civilian status until 26 April 1980 when he joined the Army National Guard and served until 12 April 1987 of which almost two years were Inactive National Guard (ING).  On 13 April 1987, he joined the WAANG and was eventually promoted in the to the grade of master sergeant (MSGT).  He was serving on the base Counter Drug Task Force and was the Drug Demand Reduction and Lead Prevention Trainer when, on 3 August 2002, he was selected for a random urinalysis.  The test returned a positive result indicating use of marijuana.  On 1 October 2002, he applied for transfer to the Retired Reserves but the transfer order was revoked when the results of the urinalysis test became known.  His commander began the process to demote him from MSgt to technical sergeant (TSgt) and, after initially concurring with his commanders’ action he spoke with counsel and eventually submitted a non-concurrence letter asking the commander not to consider demotion.  On 9 January 2003, his request was denied and on 29 January 2003, a WAANG Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the demotion package legally sufficient.  He was subsequently demoted from MSgt to TSgt effective with a date of rank of 5 February 2003 for Failure to Fulfill Non-Commissioned Officer Responsibilities under the authority of ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2503.  

On 5 February 2003, counsel for the applicant submitted a memorandum to the WAANG State Head Quarters requesting the applicant be given the opportunity to apply for transfer to the Retired Reserve in lieu of administrative discharge action.  On 1 March 2003, his request was denied because the violation of the special trust placed in him by reason of his rank, background, and position was found a flagrant violation of both military and civilian law and to be particularly repugnant considering the position he held at the time.  Nevertheless, his request was forwarded as a matter of course to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and further to SAF/Personnel Counsel (PC).  His End Term of Service (ETS) was 12 October 2003.  At that time however, his package had not yet been considered by SAF/PC.  Air Force Instruction 36-3209 however, prohibits the involuntary extension of members to complete the processing of administrative discharge actions.  He was therefore separated on his ETS and his reenlistment eligibility was listed as “Ineligible.”  He had served for 27 years, 5 months, and 29 days and was serving in the grade of TSgt when he was honorably discharged.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFOC recommends denial.  Regarding his request to have his pay date corrected to show no breaks in service, DPFOC notes the date on the NGB 22 is correct as the member had two periods of non-creditable service that led to his correct pay date of 14 April 1976.  In regards to his request to have his Reenlistment Eligibility changed, DPFOC notes the egregious nature of his offense coupled with the fact he was serving as the senior trusted agent of the WAANG Drug Testing program, his eligibility to return to military service would not be considered in the best interest of the United States.  His request to apply to the Retired Reserve is not authorized until his application is considered and accepted at the age of 60.  AFI 36-3209 states any personnel discharged upon expiration of the contract are not authorized any entitlements or benefits until they apply for and receive Reserve Retired pay at age 60.  His separation at normal ETS will not deny him Reserve Retired pay or benefits to which he is entitled upon reaching 60 years of age.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 October 2005 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.  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 National Guard office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The evidence of record confirms the pay date on file of 14 April  is correct and he is currently awaiting Reserve Retired pay at the age of 60.  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-2004-03927 in Executive Session on 1 December 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 04, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 20 Oct 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 05.