RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00883
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The narrative reason for her separation, Fraudulent Entry Into Military
Service, be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She answered NO to question 21 of the Questionnaire for National Security
Positions, regarding whether or not she had consulted with a mental health
professional, because the second part of the question states, “Unless the
consultation involved only marital, family, or grief counseling, not
related to violence by you.” She had consulted the physician only after
having been divorced. She was raised in a Catholic family and divorce does
not exist within the Catholic Church. She decided to seek professional
advice outside of the Church for personal counseling. Since this is not
related to any violence by herself, she understood that she should answer
NO.
In support of her request applicant provided a copy of her DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. Her complete
submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 20 Sep 96. She was
voluntarily ordered to active duty on 7 Jan 97. On 28 Jan 97, she was
separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, for
fraudulent entry into military service, with an uncharacterized entry-level
separation. Facts surrounding her fraudulent entry are not available.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/DPZ reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. DPZ states
that in addition to being untimely, her application may be dismissed under
the equitable doctrines of laches. She waited 5 years to file and took no
action on her claim prior to that. Her unreasonable delay has caused
prejudice to the Air Force. DPZ does not still maintain any discharge
documentation on members after more than 5 years. She does not indicate
who may have been the Air Force representative that provided this
information to her at the time of her enlistment. Thereby making it
unconscionably burdensome to remedy her situation. Her unreasonable delay
dating back 5 years has greatly complicated the Air Force’s ability to
determine the merits of her position. The DPZ 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 7 Jun
02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
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. Evidence has not been provided
in support of her appeal which would lead us to believe that a change to
her narrative reason for separation is warranted. The applicant’s failure
to timely file has added to the difficulty in obtaining all relevant
records, the burden of which must be placed upon the applicant, not the Air
Force. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that she has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find
no compelling 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 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 Docket Number 02-00883 in
Executive Session on 7 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 02, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRZ/DPZ, dated 20 May 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jun 02.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
In the applicant's case, he waited almost 7 years after he states he discovered the alleged error or injustice before he filed a claim, although the applicant knew when he applied for retirement in 3 Oct 67, the highest grade he held on active duty was master sergeant (MSgt). Therefore, based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit C). In the applicant's case, the grade is MSgt (Exhibit D).
The instructions specifically state that officers will not be considered by an SSB if, in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission in his/her records and could have taken timely corrective action. Had he been diligent in maintaining his records, the duty title would have been present on the OSB for the board’s review. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Nov 98.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03168
The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board, which denied her request. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant provides specific examples that she indicates cause the contested OPR to be in violation of Air Force Instruction 36-2406. In her response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00883
Applicant’s complete submission, w/attachments, is at Exhibit A. Based on documentation provided by the applicant he did retire from the Air Force Reserve in part due to having a condition that made him physically disqualified for active duty. Applicant appealed the unfit decision to the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) on 1 Apr 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02134
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02134 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her uncharacterized entry-level separation for fraudulent entry be changed to a medical discharge. Applicant states that she never needed the inhaler and did not suffer another attack until the present time. He affirms that...
Upon entering active duty, the applicant’s date of rank was established in accordance with AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, para 7.5.1. In this regard, the Air Force states that had the applicant entered active duty from civilian status some of her professional experience would have been used in computing her date of rank. The Board is of the opinion that the applicant’s date of rank was computed in accordance with existing regulations.
Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selection for the cycle in question. DPPPWB states that the special order awarding the applicant’s AFAM does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 00E7 because...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation & Recognition Division, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that the applicant has provided statements from all of the evaluators on both the contested TR and OPR--none of which support his appeal efforts. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
The records indicate applicant's military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken. (Exhibit C) APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's mother provided a statement from the deputy clerk of the court explaining the violation and probation. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant's Mother, dated 20 N o v 97. , w/atchs.
DPPPWB further states the Air Force, after 56 years and limited records, can not determine if the applicant should have received a promotion prior to his separation from the service. Therefore, based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit D). We believe it should be pointed out that the applicant may have been deserving of a promotion but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must assume the applicant was discharged in the...