RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02242
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He would like his discharge to be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Unbeknownst to him at the time, he was discharged with a general discharge due to nonparticipation.  He found out when he recently applied for veteran’s benefits and was turned down.  He contends he was never notified of his impending discharge and points to his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, wherein it is noted he was not available to sign the document.  His absenteeism was due to him being in college in Ogden, Utah during 1969 and 1970.  He was originally supposed to have made up his Unit Training Assembly’s (UTA’s – Drills) at Hill Air Force Base (AFB) in Utah but was told he would not be allowed to.  He notified his ANG unit at McEntire ANG Base (ANGB) in South Carolina and was told they would find him another base to attend UTA’s while attending college in Utah.  He asks that if he were missing drills why was he not notified and offered any choices he may have been entitled to.  He believed he was entitled to a medical discharge or in the least, an opportunity to go into the Regular Air Force at the rank of staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5) with over 4 years of service.  He was offered a medical discharge in July 1968 after being diagnosed with Karatoconus.  He was allowed to remain in the ANG however.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement, copies of Veteran’s Administration home loan applications, and his NGB 22.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a former member of the South Carolina ANG (SCANG), had secured a conditional release from the SCANG to perform his UTA’s in Utah as part of the ANG unit there.  The conditional release was approved in October 1969.  In January 1970, the UTANG cancelled the conditional release, as the applicant had not enlisted with the UTANG.  The SCANG scheduled a medical appointment for the applicant on 21 March 1970.  Applicant presented for the physical but did not complete it.  Official correspondence was mailed to the applicant on 29 April 1970 but was returned marked “Moved, Left no Address.”  On 25 May 1970, the Chief, National Guard Bureau (CNGB) ordered the applicant be returned to active duty.  In June 1970, applicant was ordered to report for priority induction into the Air Force for failure to satisfactorily participate in training.  On 17 July 1970, he was reduced in grade from staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5) to airman (Amn/E-2).  He reported and on 23 July 1970, he was ordered to report for induction not later than 3 August 1970.  He did so and was found medically disqualified for service.  On 1 September 1970, the SCANG was notified of applicant’s status and on 8 September 1970, he was recommended for a General discharge for failure to satisfactorily participate.  The recommendation was approved and on 8 October 1970, he was discharged with a General discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI states the applicant was an unsatisfactory participant from August 1969 until August 1970.  DPPI notes his medical disqualification at his induction did not negate his failure to participate satisfactorily.  DPPI can find no evidence of error or injustice in this case.

DPPI’s complete 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 25 February 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 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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions of non-notification by the Air National Guard, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing AFR at the time and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air National Guard was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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-2004-02242 in Executive Session on 4 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, , dated.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 February 2005.