RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01525
		INDEX CODE:  100.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Although the applicant is requesting his DD Form 214 be amended, it appears he is actually requesting his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, issued in conjunction with his 9 September 1990 separation be amended in item 26 – Reenlistment Eligibility to reflect eligible rather than ineligible.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He requested a hardship discharge to the Ready Reserves due to both parents being diagnosed with cancer.  It was explained to him that he would be eligible for reenlistment in the future once his Ready Reserve commitment was completed.  He was never out processed and never signed any paperwork reflecting his status as ineligible.  He received no registered documentation from the Air National Guard or the Air Force as being officially discharged.  He now desires to reenlist.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, NGB Form 22, and AF Form 526, ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summary.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the West Virginia Air National Guard on 15 April 1987.  On 24 April 1987, he entered active duty to complete initial active duty training and on 23 July 1987 he was honorably released after completion of his training.  The DD Form 214 issued in conjunction with his 23 July 1987 release from active duty indicates “NA” in item 27, Reenlistment Code.

On 5 May 1990, applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to demote him from airman first class to the grade of airman.  The specific reason for this action was applicant’s failure to attend Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs).  He received a total of nine unexcused absences since August 1989.  On that same date the applicant concurred with the demotion action.
On 18 June 1990, applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend he be discharged from the West Virginia Air National Guard according to ANGR 39-10, chapter 5.  The specific reason for this action was his unsatisfactory participation in scheduled UTAs.  He was advised of his rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on that same date.  The applicant waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge board.  In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient.  On 20 August 1990, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed that he be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  Applicant was discharged on 9 September 1990.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POFM recommends denial.  A1POFM states the applicant was discharged from the West Virginia Air National Guard for unsatisfactory participation.  Members discharged for hardship may be considered for further service if the condition that created the hardship has been resolved.  Unsatisfactory participants are not eligible for further service and are not considered to be eligible for a waiver for entry into the Air National Guard.  There is no error or injustice in this case.

NGB/A1POFM’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

NGB/A1PS recommends denial.  A1PS states the applicant was discharged for unsatisfactory participation.  Unsatisfactory participants are not eligible for further service and are not considered to be eligible for a waiver for entry into the ANG.  A1PS concurs with A1POFM’s recommendation.

NGB/A1PS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 January 2008, the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it is our opinion that given the circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air National Guard, the reenlistment eligibility assigned appears to be proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives.  The applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe otherwise.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the offices 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.

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 issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2007-01525 in Executive Session on 13 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 April 2007, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1POFM, dated 22 October 2007, w/atchs.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 18 December 2007.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 January 2008.