RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05217

XXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His NGB 22, Department of the Army and Air Force National Guard Bureau, Report of Separation and Record of Service, effective 3 July 1997, be corrected to reflect he was honorably discharged and his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) summary.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He only received page one of the NGB 22 and it does not state the type of discharge he received.  The NGB 22 should have been two pages. He was turned down for a position by the Maryland National Guard due to this inaccurate and incomplete NGB 22 and needs this issue resolved.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Air National Guard.  

According to the contested NGB 22, he was released from the Air National Guard this term effective 3 July 1997 in the rank of senior airman.  

The Automated Records Management System (ARMS) does not reflect copy two of the applicant’s contested NGB 22.

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/A1 recommends denial.  The applicant has not exhausted all reasonable administrative remedies prior to submitting this application for relief to the Board.

The applicant has access to ARMS/Personnel Records Display Application located on the Air Force Portal via the virtual Military Personnel Flight.  He can also contact the Air Reserve Personnel Center, the State of issuance Georgia Air National Guard or the National Archives.

According to ANGI 36-3201, Air National Guard Separations Documents, the NGB 22 will be distributed as follows:  original to the member, copy two to the member upon request, copy three to the field record group, and copy for to the State Adjutant General. 

A complete copy of the NGB/A1 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he does not understand why the advisory states he has not exhausted his administrative remedies.  He has contacted everyone in his chain.  

In 2012, he contacted a supervisor from Warner Robins Air Force Base and explained his NGB 22 was incorrect.  He was directed to speak with personnel.  The personnel office told him to speak with the retention office and then he was sent back to personnel.  He was then told to contact the Air Force Personnel Center who would open a case and resolve the issue.

He also contacted the Total Force Center who sent him to the National Archives.  The National Archives told him that they did not have a copy of his NGB 22 and sent his case back to Georgia, the unit where the document originated.  

On 2 February 2015, he once again attempted to get a new NGB 22 through the Human Resource office.  A technician contacted Warner Robins on his behalf and requested the NGB 22 be reaccomplished.  However, Warner Robins did not complete the form, as requested.  

To now receive a letter stating that he has not done enough he simply asks, who has he missed?  He has contacted or spoken to every organization on more than one occasion.  He has been working on this issue since 2011 and respectfully believes he has done all that he can to get this done.

A complete copy of the applicant’s response 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  While NGB/A1’s opinion and recommendation notes the applicant has not exhausted his administrative remedies; we disagree.  The applicant states and we believe the applicant has done his due diligence in attempting to obtain page 2 of his NGB 22 effective 3 July 1997.  Therefore, in order to correct the error and injustice, we believe the applicant should be provided a complete NGB 22 for the period of service ending 3 July 1997.  Accordingly, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be issued a new and complete NGB Form 22, Department of the Army and Air Force National Guard Bureau, Report of Separation and Record of Service, in conjunction with his 3 July 1997 period of service.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-05217 in Executive Session on 10 March 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Dec 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1, dated 14 Jan 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jan 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, 16 Feb 16, 
             w/atchs.