RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02988 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Separation Program Designator (SPD) of “JBK” (completion of required active service – denied reenlistment – one half separation pay) on his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, be changed to “LBK,” (completion of required active service – denied reenlistment – one half separation pay). 2. His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 6U (ANG not selected for retention by the commander) be changed to RE1 (eligible for reenlistment). 3. His separation pay be paid in full. 4. His AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, dated 3 Jan 11, be removed. 5. His Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 5 Jan 11, be removed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not recommended for reenlistment which resulted in his separation from active duty and the Air National Guard. Because of his SPD codes he did not receive full separation pay. He was not properly notified of non-recommendation for reenlistment in accordance with the governing directives. His commander’s nonrecommendation for reenlistment was based on incidents that happen prior to his reenlistment. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and a copy of his request for congressional assistance. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to the events under review, the applicant reenlisted in the Air National Guard, on 22 Apr 10, for a period of one year. On 16 Aug 10, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was not recommending him for reenlistment or continuation in the Active Duty Guard Reserve (AGR) program. On 20 Apr 11, the applicant was honorably released from active duty with a reason for separation – completion of AGR military duty tour and a reentry code 6U. He was credited with 4 years, 11 months, and 29 days of active duty during this period. On 21 Apr 11, the applicant was discharged from the ANG and as a Reserve of the Air Force, with a reason for separation of not selected for reenlistment- expiration term of service and a reentry code of 6U. He was credited with 17 years, 6 months, and 19 days of service for retired pay and 23 years, 6 months, and 23 days of total service for pay. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends denial, stating, in part, that while the documentation indicates the SPD code on his NGB 22 was JBK and the code on his DD 214 was LBK, both codes are correct. Particularly, because JBK is the separation code for ANG members being discharged from active duty and LBK is the code used when a member is released from active duty. Based on his separation from active duty, the code on the DD 214 should be used for pay calculation purposes as opposed to the code on the NGB 22. However, A1PS recommends the applicant contact DFAS and submit his DD 214 for the purpose of re-determining his separation pay as well as any other administrative errors noted. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He disagrees with the NGB opinion and contends that LBK may not be available due to the fact an AGR entered into the career program cannot be released if fully qualified for retention. This is a requirement in ANGI 36-101, para 7.2. Reenlistments/Extensions, which states, enlisted AGRs who are granted continuation as a result of the AGR Continuation Board (ACB) or are extended on their AGR tour are authorized to reenlist or extend to support the retainability requirement regardless of their current ETS. The applicant provided additional statements and documentation to substantiate that he was not recommended for reenlistment in accordance with the governing directives; was not given feedback properly; and not given appropriate separation pay. He notes that all of the incidents used as a basis for denying reenlistment happened prior to his reenlistment on 22 Apr 10. In addition, certain medical documents listed in his service medical record appear to be erroneous and he does not believe that those documents belong in his record. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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, including his response to the NGB office of primary responsibility (OPR) in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, while we note the applicant contends that his separation and issuance of his reenlistment eligibility code were not in accordance with the applicable ANG directives, we disagree. ANGI 36-101, authorizes ACBs to be convened at the discretion of the Adjutant General (AG) to determine an enlisted member’s career status and based on the AG’s denial of the applicant’s appeal, the AG concurred with the commander’s decision to nonrecommend him for reenlistment, which resulted in his release from the AGR program and subsequent discharge from the ANG. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of this portion of his application. 4. In regard to his request that certain medical documents, which he contends were erroneously captured in his medical records, be removed, we are not convinced he has provided sufficient evidence to show the documents in question are not his or that they should be removed from his service medical record. Consequently, we do not believe he has met his burden of establishing an error or injustice in this record and find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of this portion of his request. 5. 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 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-2011-02988 in Executive Session on 10 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 11, with atchs. Exhibit B. Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 28 Sep 11, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Oct 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Oct 11, w/atchs.