RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03661 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Reenlistment Eligibility on his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed to Eligible rather than Ineligible. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was honorably discharged from the Illinois Air National Guard (ILANG) as a conscientious objector. He is not now nor has he ever been a conscientious objector. Prior to his discharge, he was dissatisfied with his job as he was given menial tasks to perform or sometimes nothing to do at all during his Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs). He was counseled that the best and the only legal option available to him to end his service obligation was to exit the ILANG as a conscientious objector. He was young at the time and followed the counsel of his superiors leading to this injustice. He would like to join the U.S. Army. In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and a copy of his NGB Form 22. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a former member of the ILANG, began his military service on 15 October 1988. He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (A1C/E-3) effective and with a date of rank of 13 November 1990. On 14 June 1992, he was honorably discharged from the ILANG as a conscientious objector. His Reenlistment Eligibility is Ineligible. He served a total of three years and eight months toward a Reserve retirement at age 60. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS concurs with the subject matter expert (SME), NGB/A1POE and recommends denial. A1POE states the applicant’s commander appointed an investigating officer (IO) to document the applicant’s request for discharge as a conscientious objector. The IO presented evidence to the State Judge Advocate who recommended to the Chief, National Guard Bureau (CNGB) that the discharge request be granted. A1POE states the applicant has not presented any documentation that shows he was counseled to claim conscientious objector status. Therefore, his request to have his reenlistment eligibility changed has no basis. A1PS’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant would like the Board to consider two factors involving his case. First, the counseling he received was not documented since it occurred prior to any steps taken toward a discharge. Those who provided the counseling are no longer available to be interviewed as they have passed away. While he admits to not being able to disprove he sought conscientious objector status and that it was a mistake on his part to follow the counsel that led to it, he notes he was not presented with any other options with which to honorably leave the ILANG. Second, he asks the Board to note that he is not asking that the Board change his record to cover up a poor decision made in his past, he is trying to enter the U.S. Army to serve his country at a time of war. He argues that if he were a civilian who had claimed conscientious objector status to avoid service in the past then he would be allowed to enter the service at a later date by simply providing an affidavit indicating he no longer held whose views. In his case, he can only enter the armed forces if his reenlistment eligibility is changed. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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. We note however that the reenlistment eligibility of Ineligible, under some circumstances, can be waived by the gaining service. 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-2008-03661 in Executive Session on 23 April 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 October 2008, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 9 March 2009, w/atch. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 March 2009. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 March 2009.