RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01403
		INDEX CODE:  110.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated in the Active Duty Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His completion of the Weather Observer Course exempted him from attending the Combat Weather Team Office Course at Keesler AFB, MS.  He requests that the Board take into consideration his other completed courses (Army Basic Airborne Course, Combat Survival Course and Water Survival Course).  He believes that had these courses been in his record the Force Shaping Board (FSB) would not have forced him out of the Air Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his DD Form 214’s, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant began his military career by enlisting on 16 April 1993.  He was appointed in the US Air Force on 31 October 2003.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of 1Lt with a date of rank of 31 October 2005.  He received an honorable discharge and was released from the Regular Air Force on 3 November 2006 under a Reduction in Force (RIF).  He was appointed in the Tennessee Air National Guard (TNANG) on 3 December 2006.  He has since served with the TNANG and has over 8 years of satisfactory service for Reserve retirement at age 60.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  There is no official Air Force vehicle with which he could have documented his attendance in the courses indicated.  Therefore, if he believed these courses were important in the selection process, he could have written a letter to the board members informing them of the accomplishments prior to convening of the board.  DPPPO has verified the applicant did not exercise this option.  A material error did not exist in his record when it met the FSB.

DPPPO’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was at a decided disadvantage in finding out what his options were regarding Force Shaping as he was stationed four hours away from his servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF) at a Geographically Separated Unit (GSU).  He had been told by his commander he would be given special consideration during the force shaping process.  With airborne parachuting and survival training, he believes maybe five percent of weather officers could complete the training that he did.  He was not aware he could have requested special consideration by a supplemental board (convened 12 March 2007) as he was training for the advanced special tactics pipeline.  He contends special weather operations teams are already stretched thin due to deployments and he has always been willing to deploy.  Force shaping a volunteer for combat zone deployments makes no sense to him.  

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2007-01403 in Executive Session on 5 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 20 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 07.