RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03610 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation code (SPD) on his NGB Form 22, Record of Service in the Air National Guard, be changed from an entry-level performance/misconduct to a favorable separation code. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He never actually served in the Michigan Air National Guard (ANG); however, he was given 5 years of service and an entry- level separation. He did not realize until recently that he could request to have the SPD changed and he did not know that the SPD code was a code for misconduct, which will affect any possible future federal employment and/or reenlistment into the Armed Forces. 2. In Jun 03, after being separated from the Army and having knee surgery, he was still interested in serving with the Armed Forces. He spoke to a recruiter with the ANG who told him his separation was not a problem since he only served for four months; however, he may need a waiver because of his knee surgery. 3. In late 2005 or early 2006, he received a packet notifying him of his involuntary separation for failing to attend basic training. The packet contained a letter asking him if he would like to seek military or civilian counsel. At that time he did not think anything of it and sent the forms back declining counsel. He had no contact with any personnel from Selfridge ANGB or the ANG. 4. In Jun 08, a few years after he received the packet stating he was being discharged from the ANG, he received yet another packet from the ANG. This time enclosed was a NGB 22, stating that he was discharged with 5 years and 11 days of service and that he was eligible for reenlistment into the Armed Forces. He did not question any of the documentation from the ANG until he spoke with a recruiter regarding his quest of joining the ANG. The discharge does not make sense to him because the ANG requested his discharge in 2005, yet retained him until 2008 before actually discharging him. He was also told that his unit of assignment should have contacted him to find out why he did not show up for drills; however, no one ever contacted him. He never received any pay or military benefits from the ANG. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his NGB Form 22, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, a copy of his involuntary discharge package, a copy of his congressional inquiry, and a personal statement. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted into the ANG on 19 Jun 03; however, he never went to basic military training (BMT). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit B and C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1POE recommends denial. After reviewing the applicant’s discharge notification package, dated 22 Mar 06, it was validated that the member was recommended for discharge for failing to maintain contact with the unit to schedule a date to attend BMT or attend Unit Training Assembly (UTA) weekends, which constituted substandard performance on the applicant’s behalf. A1POE provides a copy of the applicant’s DD Form 4, Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States, which validates he enlisted into the Michigan ANG. The complete NGB/A1POE evaluation is at Exhibit B. NGB/A1PS recommends denial. A1PS concurs with NGB/A1POE that the applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with Air Force policies and procedures, and no evidence was provided to show an error or injustice. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Mar 12 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 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 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-2011-03610 in Executive Session on 17 Apr 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2011-03610 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 14 Feb 12. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 15 Feb 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Mar 12.