RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04184 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code 6H, which denotes “Pending Discharge in accordance with ANGR 39-10 – Involuntary (ANG Only),” be removed from his records. He be credited with “good and satisfactory” Unit Training Assembly (UTA) days from his enlistment in Sep 2008 to present. He be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt, E-6). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His first sergeant was assisting him update his status so he would be performing drill/UTA for points only. He did not want to receive drill pay because he was receiving Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits. He was deemed to be medically disqualified without a physical. He was never notified of pending discharge actions, and 00the RE code he was given prevents him from enlisting in any branch of service in the future. He was told by his commander that he was discharged because of his disability. He had the same disability when he initially joined the Air National Guard (ANG) in 2008. He has since reenlisted into the 113th District of Washington ANG (DCANG) with the same RE code, which technically should have prevented him from reenlisting. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of NGB 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service; DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States; Addendum to DD Form 4; NGB Form 438, Honorable Discharge certificate, and electronic communiqués. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the ANG in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1POE recommends denial. A1POE states, they contacted the 113th Force Support Squadron and were informed the applicant was erroneously discharged from the 113th DCANG; however he has since reenlisted into the organization effective 15 Sep 2011. A1POE states, in accordance with the applicant’s point credit summary, he did not participate in enough UTA days from his initial enlistment date of 20 Sep 2008 to the date of the erroneous discharge, on 1 Aug 2010. He did not accrue the required 50 points towards a satisfactory year in either year; therefore, A1POE cannot recommend he receive points to effect a good year during the period he was erroneously discharged. In regards to his request for promotion to TSgt, A1POE states, the commander did not initiate promotion paperwork for the applicant. Moreover, he did not have any satisfactory participation years while assigned to the unit, which leads A1POE to conclude the commander, would not have recommended him for a promotion. The complete A1POE evaluation is at Exhibit C. NGB/A1PS concurs with A1POE’s advisory, and therefore, does not recommend the applicant’s requested relief. The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 20 Mar 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 an error or injustice to warrant correcting his records to reflect credit for satisfactory UTA days or that he be promoted to the grade of TSgt. 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Regarding his request to change his RE code, A1POE has advised that they will administratively correct his record by removing the applicant’s erroneous RE code of 6H. Aside from the administrative correction noted above, we find no 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 this application in Executive Session on 10 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-04184: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 22 Feb 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 29 Feb 2012 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 20 Mar 2012.