RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02157

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

His rank be restored to senior airman (E-4).  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He endured non-stop harassment between 1994 and 1996 while serving in his squadron.  He was harassed about his weight and ridiculed publicly by non-commissioned officers (NCOs) in the presence of senior NCOs and officers.  He finally met with his commander and first sergeant to make them aware of the issue.  However, they instructed him to return to his shop and indicated they would look into the matter.  This made him anxious so he did not return and was unaware of what to do next.  Regrettably, he ceased coming to weekend drills.  

He made an error in judgement, but this matter was not handled correctly at the time.  He has lived with a general discharge for almost 18 years and it is not a true reflection of service to his country.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.  

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Air National Guard on 26 November 1991.  

On 9 October 1996, via certified mail, the applicant’s commander notified him of his unauthorized absences from his scheduled Unit Training Assembly (UTA) on 5 and 6 October 1996.  He was advised to submit a valid excuse or justification for these absences within fifteen (15) days of receipt of notification.  The receipt was returned 16 October 1996.  

On 8 November 1996, via certified mail, the applicant was issued a Letter of Admonition for an unauthorized absence from his scheduled UTA held on 2 and 3 November 1996.  He was further notified that his unauthorized absences rendered him subject to arrest.  The receipt was returned 12 November 1996.  

On 11 December 1996, via certified mail, the applicant was issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for an unauthorized absence from his scheduled UTA held on 7 and 8 December 1996.  The receipt was returned 14 December 1996.  

On 7 January 1997, the applicant’s commander was notified of the applicant’s unsatisfactory participation and that he should be removed from the incentive program, effective 5 October 1996.  

On 13 January 1997, via certified mail, the applicant was issued a LOR for an unauthorized absence from his scheduled UTA held on 11 and 12 January 1997.  The receipt was returned 15 January 1997.  

On 10 February 1997, via certified mail, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to demote him to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C).  The reason for this action was due to the applicant’s failure to attend 20 mandatory UTAs.  Specifically, for the following dates: 5 & 6 October 1996, 2 & 3 November 1996, 7 & 8 December 1996, 11 & 12 January 1997, and 8 & 9 February 1997.  The receipt was returned 24 February 1997.  

On 4 March 1997, the applicant was issued a Letter of Severe Reprimand for an unauthorized absence from his scheduled UTA held on 1 and 2 March 1997.  

On 9 March 1997, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate found the applicant’s recommended demotion action to be legally and factually sufficient, due to his unsatisfactory participation.  

On 13 March 1997, the applicant was demoted to the grade of A1C.  

On 7 April 1997, via certified mail, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air National Guard and transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve for the balance of his enlistment or military service obligation for unsatisfactory participation.  The specific reason for the action was due to his failure to attend a total of 28 UTAs within the past twelve months without authorization, justification, or excuse.  

On 18 July 1997, the case was found to be legally sufficient.  

On 30 July 1997, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  

On 22 September 1997, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with 5 years, 9 months, and 27 days of total service for pay.  
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PP recommends denial.  The applicant was counselled both in writing and verbally on numerous occasions regarding his absent status.  In this case, the commander followed proper procedures by demoting and discharging the applicant.  The applicant did not provide any evidence that shows the demotion or discharge was either an error or injustice.  

The legal review noted the applicant was notified by certified mail in regards to his demotion and discharge actions, but he failed to respond, which acted as a waiver of his rights.  In addition, it was noted the applicant failed to attend a total of 28 UTA periods without justification or excuse.  In accordance with the regulation at that time, discharge was appropriate when a member has accumulated nine or more unexcused absences from UTAs within a 12 month period.  This is still supported by AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members.  

Furthermore, in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 651, members of the selected reserve who have not fulfilled their statutory military service obligation and whose participation has not been satisfactory may be discharged for unsatisfactory participation when the commander concerned has determined that the individual has no potential for useful service under conditions of full mobilization.  

A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 May 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 an 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Additionally, we considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s activities since leaving the service, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  However, should the applicant decide to submit documentation related to his post-service activities; we may reconsider his request based on new evidence.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2015-02157 in Executive Session on 8 September 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02157 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 May 2015.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1PP, dated 12 May 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 May 2016.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.