RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01507 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

___________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His “ineligible” reenlistment eligibility (RE) code on his 
NGB Form 22, Department of the Army and Air Force, National 
Guard Bureau, Report of Separation and Record of Service, 
issued in conjunction with his 31 July 2007 separation from 
the Battle Creek Air National Guard (ANG) be changed to 
reflect “eligible”. 

 

___________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He believes his RE code is in error because he was offered 
the opportunity to seek another military occupation 
Specialty (MOS) after failing his 5-level career 
development course (CDC). He chose to get out because his 
family was moving to another state at the time this was 
happening. He had nowhere else to go because he worked for 
his father. He is asking for another opportunity to be a 
valuable asset to the ANG. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of 
his NG Form 22. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

___________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted into the ANG on 30 July 2004. 

 

On 31 July 2007, the commander notified the member that he 
was being discharged from the ANG under the provisions of 
AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air 
National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, Substandard 
(Unsatisfactory) Performance. The commander recommended 
the applicant receive an honorable separation. The specific 
reasons for this action were: 1) On 5 November 2005, he 
failed his End-of-Course exam with a score of 48; 2) On 4 


March 2006, he failed the second End-of-Course with a score 
of 49. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of 
discharge, consulted with counsel and waived his right to 
submit statements in his own behalf. The base legal office 
reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to 
support separation. They recommended he be separated with 
an honorable separation without probation or 
rehabilitation. The discharge authority approved the 
separation and directed that he be separated with an 
honorable separation without probation or rehabilitation. 

 

On 31 July 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged 
from the MI ANG because he failed his end-of-course 
examination for his CDC twice. He served three years and 
two days of service for pay. 

 

___________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1PS recommends denial. A1PS concurs with the subject 
matter expert (SME). The SME states the applicant was 
discharged due to substandard performance because he failed 
to attain or maintain required job skill proficiency, by 
either associated inaptitude or non-application. 

 

AFI 36-3209 states a member may be discharged when it is 
determined that the member is unqualified for further 
military service due to substandard performance. 

 

The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

___________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 27 August 2010 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not 
received a response. 

 

___________________________________________________________
_____ 

 

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 the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, we find no 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-2010-01507 in Executive Session on 28 October 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

Panel Chair 

Member 

Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 24 Aug 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 25 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair