RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02491
								INDEX CODE:  129.02, 133.03
								COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His pay grade be shown as E-4, rather than E-3, so that he may reenlist in the Air National Guard (ANG).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After serving 6 years, 8 months, and 26 days, he was passed over in rank, and although illness may have played a part, he was still a member.  Although he is not saying the ANG owes him a second chance, his injury was caused by the military and he would still be in the Guard if not for this injury.  Now that the problem has been corrected, perhaps the military will let him reenlist, and his pay grade must be E-4 or better to do so.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a personal statement pertaining to the medical condition that caused his separation, his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, effective 21 November 1998, a letter from the Surgical Clinic, PLLC, concerning a revascularization on the left lower extremity in October 2006, and a DD Form 293, Application for the review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, dated 18 July 2007.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Michigan ANG (MIANG) on 26 February 1992, and was separated in the grade of airman first class (A1C - E-3) on 21 November 1998 due to medical disqualification.  He completed 6 years, 8 months, and 26 days of total service for pay, and 6 years of satisfactory 
service for Reserve Retired Pay eligibility at age 60.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PS recommends denial of relief.  On 1 November 2007, the MIANG advised that the applicant was promoted to the grade of SRA/E-4 on 10 October 1997.  However, a request was made by his unit on 14 October 1997 to pull the request for promotion due to the fact that he was being processed for unsatisfactory participation.  The order promoting him was then revoked “in part” to remove him from the promotion order.  On 12 December 2007, NGB/A1POFM concurred with the recommendation to deny the requested relief.

The NGB/A1PS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 December 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, 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; 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.  Evidence has been presented that his unit requested he be removed from the October 1997 SRA/E-4 promotion order due to unsatisfactory participation, and he was subsequently separated in the pay grade of E-3.  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 Docket Number BC-2007-02491 in Executive Session on 12 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 17 Dec 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Dec 07.