RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03655
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

By amendment, he be promoted to the Reserve grade of major general.

He receive all pay and allowances that he was denied.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His due process rights were violated, which was an abuse of  authority
by certain individuals whose purpose was to terminate  his  career  in
the Air Force Reserve.  The injustice done to him  caused  a  six-year
interruption in his career.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and numerous other documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant was assigned to the Retired Reserve  Awaiting  Pay,
effective 1 Apr 00.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters  prepared  by  the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel  Program  Management,  ARPC/DP,  reviewed
this application  and  noted  that  the  applicant  was  involuntarily
reassigned to Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ  ARPC)  in
May 90.  He  was  notified  by  mail  on  23 May 90  of  the  intended
reassignment.  The applicant endorsed the letter concurring  with  the
action on 24 May 90. Although the  notification  letter  sent  to  the
applicant under then existing AFR  35-41,  Separation  Procedures  for
U.S. Air Force Reserve Members, did not conform to the requirements of
the regulation in that it failed to list the specific reasons for  the
proposed  action,  with  supporting  acts,  by  his  endorsement,  the
applicant waived any technical violations.

In  ARPC/DP’s  view,  the  larger  issue  is  why  the  applicant  was
reassigned to HQ ARPC in May 90 and his inability to  participate  for
the next six years.  According to DP, he was involuntarily  reassigned
prior to initiation of  a  discharge  action.   The  reassignment  was
entirely  within  discretion  of   his   commander   and   appropriate
considering the seriousness of the allegations against the  applicant.
As a result of that action, the applicant was placed  in  Nonobligated
Nonparticipating Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS)  on  6  Jul  90,  and
subsequently placed  in  the  Inactive  Status  List  Reserve  Section
(ISLRS) on 10 Oct 91, which prevented him from  participating  in  any
Reserve program pending resolution  of  the  administrative  discharge
process.  On 30 Mar 93, an administrative discharge board  recommended
that the applicant be retained as a member of the  Air  Force  Reserve
and terminated the discharge action initiated under AFR 35-41, Chapter
3.  In addition,  the  administrative  discharge  board  directed  the
applicant  to  resubmit  all  DoD  Forms  135l-2,  Travel  Voucher  or
Subvoucher, for the period 23 Apr 87 to 15 Jul  89,  and  to  pay  all
monies owed the U.S.  Government  for  the  period  in  question.   By
memorandum dated 29 Jun 93,  officials  of  the  Defense  Finance  and
Accounting Service-Denver Center advised that the applicant  “did  not
willfully  attempt  to  defraud  the  U.S.  Government  for  allegedly
receiving travel entitlements and reimbursements for which he was  not
entitled.”

ARPC/DP  indicated  that  since  the  administrative  discharge  board
recommended retention and the finance officials determined he did  not
defraud the United States Government, it follows that the reassignment
to  a  nonparticipating  status  had  a  derogatory  effect   on   the
applicant's career,  which  should  now  be  corrected.   Accordingly,
ARPC/DP made recommendations as to the corrections that should be made
to the applicant’s records.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In  his  detailed  response,  the   applicant   indicated   that   the
potentiality  exists  for  the  Board  to  consider  recommending  his
promotion to the grade of major general in the Air Force Reserve.   In
his view, this is  a  logical  conclusion  and  supports  the  Board’s
objective to find a material remedy for the  injustice  identified  in
the advisory opinion.

Applicant’s complete response and additional documentary evidence  are
at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, The Directorate of Personnel  Program
Management, ARPC/DP, reviewed the applicant’s  rebuttal  response  and
made recommendations for corrections to the applicant’s records in the
event that the Board rules in favor of the applicant receiving  points
up to the date he is regained to a point-gaining activity.

ARPC/DP indicated that the applicant’s request for Reserve  promotions
would have to be referred to HQ USAF/REPS.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DP  evaluation,  with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a response  to  the  additional  advisory  opinion,
which is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief  of  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  HQ  USAF/RE,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that based on the information presented, and
his experience, it is unlikely that  the  applicant  would  have  been
competitive  for  nomination  to  a  general  officer  position,  and,
therefore, would not have been eligible to compete for promotion.

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/RE evaluation is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated in his  most  recent  rebuttal  response  that  to
remedy the injustice he has suffered, the Board  should  consider  the
intentionality and proportionality of the injustice.   He  appeals  to
the Board to award full  financial  reimbursement  for  lost  pay  and
allowances and that it recommend his Reserve promotion to the grade of
major general.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  Based on  the  evidence
presented, it would initially appear that the applicant has  sustained
his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or  an
injustice.  After a more thorough review of  this  case,  we  are  not
sufficiently convinced that he has done so.  The available evidence of
record reveals that the  applicant  was  involuntarily  reassigned  to
NNRPS  and  subsequently  to   ISLRS,   which   prevented   him   from
participating  in  any  Reserve  program  pending  resolution  of  the
administrative  discharge  action  taken   against   him,   based   on
allegations of travel voucher fraud.   Ultimately,  an  administrative
discharge  board  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  retained  and
terminated the discharge action.  Also, finance  officials  determined
that he had not defrauded the government.  However, absent  from  this
Board is the documentation that would provide us with a more  complete
picture surrounding the  circumstances  that  ultimately  led  to  his
involuntary reassignment and the initiation of the  discharge  action.
Applicant contends that he was the victim of an orchestrated effort to
terminate  his  Air  Force  Reserve  career.   Other  than   his   own
assertions, no evidence has been presented  which  would  lead  us  to
believe that anyone conspired to derail his career, as he alleges.  In
our  view,  the  lack  of  documentation   concerning   the   specific
allegations against the applicant and the basis for the disposition of
the discharge case presents to our minds an unbalanced  view  of  this
case, and leaves us with too many unanswered questions.   Accordingly,
we do not believe a favorable consideration of the applicant’s appeal,
at this time, would be appropriate.  However,  if  the  applicant  can
provided the necessary documentation that, in our opinion, would  shed
considerable light on the facts and circumstances of  this  case;  for
example, copies of Air Force Office of Investigations (AFOSI)  report,
the letter of notification of his reassignment, a  transcript  of  the
discharge board, to include the findings and conclusions,  the  travel
voucher(s) for which he was reimbursed monies, and the  Department  of
Defense  Inspector  General  (DODIG)  Hotline  complaint,  we  may  be
inclined to reconsider this appeal.

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 DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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 2 Aug 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Nov 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DP, dated 25 Mar 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 May 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 Jul 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, ARPC/DP, dated 14 Oct 98, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Nov 98.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 27 Nov 98.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, HQ USAF/RE, dated 5 Jun 00.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Jun 00.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, applicant, dated 5 Jul 00, w/atch.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair