RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02189
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility be changed from “Ineligible” to “Eligible.”  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He moved to Texas for employment reasons and concurrently transferred from the Puerto Rico Air National Guard (PRANG) to the Texas ANG (TXANG).  Prior to attending Unit Training Assemblies (UTA’s) with the TXANG, his company informed him he would have to move to Spain.  He contends he notified his recruiter at the TXANG and was told that since the TXANG had no investment in the applicant to recoup that he should go to Spain and resume his military career upon his return to the United States.  He contends the recruiter he worked with left the TXANG shortly after and he consequently lost his contact with the TXANG.  He was not aware of the action taken against him by the TXANG for non participation in UTA’s and was never notified by the TXANG.  He gave his contact information to the TXANG recruiter but upon checking, he found his address had never been updated in the system as it was reflected Keesler AFB, where he attended technical training school in 1996.  He was not even aware of the reenlistment ineligibility until he tried to reenlist with the PRANG.  He has always done his best to serve his country in good faith and would like to do so again.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a former member of the Puerto Rico ANG (PRANG) transferred to the TXANG on 21 July 1999 and enlisted for a period of six years.  He was assigned to the 209th Weather Flight at Austin, TX.  He failed to appear for 12 UTA periods and, on 7 November 1999, was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him from the TXANG for nonparticipation.  He was discharged for non-participation effective 24 August 2000 and is considered ineligible to reenlist in the armed forces.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFOC recommends denial.  DPFOC contends the applicant missed 12 UTA periods and was separated in accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, wherein it is stated that members may be discharged when the member has accumulated nine or more unexcused absences from UTA within a 12-month period.  DPFOC contends he voluntarily signed a certified letter of notification dated 7 November 1999 acknowledging his understanding of the discharge action.

DPFOC’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 July 2005 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions he was not obligated to the TXANG, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air National Guard.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard’s office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-02189 in Executive Session on 27 September 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jul 04, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 20 May 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 July 2005.