ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03160

					COUNSEL:  

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Apr 94 involuntary release from her Active Duty for 
Support (ADS) orders be set aside.

2.  She be granted retroactive sanctuary zone protection under the 
provisions of Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) § 12686(a) 
until she qualifies for a Regular retired pay in Apr 96.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 
3 Sep 03.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the applicant’s separation, and, the rationale of the 
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at 
Exhibit I.

By DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 12, the applicant requests 
reconsideration to invoke protection under the sanctuary 
provisions because her ADS orders were unlawfully changed to 
Active Duty For Training (ADT) after-the-fact; thereby, denying 
her the ability to apply for sanctuary.  

Counsel provides an affidavit from the same Air Force civilian 
employee, who provided a statement in her 2003 application, in 
which he again contends the 2003 statement by the former 
Superintendent, Consolidated Base Personnel Office (CBPO), was 
false.  Further, his affidavit shows the alleged timing of the 
amendments as being after the applicant had left active duty 
status was not truthful.  But, rather her orders were amended 
secretly being triggered by her inquiries about sanctuary while 
she was still on her ADS tour.  

Counsel notes that her Air Force records and BCMR proceedings are 
complete and contains all the necessary contentions at issue.  In 
addition, neither the applicant nor the Board raised the relevance 
and similarity in her case to Bond v. United States, where the 
court held that the Air Force unit violated its own regulation by 
retroactively changing a Reservists ADS orders to ADT in order to 
deny sanctuary.  As well, the similarity in Wagner v. United 
States, 2004, where the court found the US Army improperly 
released a Reservist under its 18 year sanctuary rule without 
prior Secretarial approval, only speculating in hindsight that the 
SECARMY would have released the Reservist anyway.  

The applicant believes the Board should find it in the interest of 
justice to consider her untimely application because since 2000, 
she has been suffering from multiple degenerative diseases that 
has prevented her active pursuit of new evidence and this 
reconsideration.  In addition, the applicant retained counsel, in 
2008; however, in 2007, counsel was injured in an accident which 
counsel received extensive treatment and rehabilitation up until 
2010.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit J.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/JAA recommends denial indicating the Board issue one or more 
of three, alternative findings, the first-shown finding here, in 
particular, being fully warranted based on all the evidence in 
this advisory:

      1.  On the merits, direct evidence written by the applicant 
herself in 1996 convincingly shows she did not make an affirmative 
claim for sanctuary zone protection while she was still serving on 
active duty, an essential element required to perfect a claim for 
sanctuary zone protection.  Therefore, her application should be 
denied.  JAA need not reach the issue of whether the applicant's 
military duties she performed in Apr 94 were, in fact, ADS or ADT, 
as might otherwise be required based on Bond v. U.S….

      2.  On new and relevant evidence, the applicant has submitted 
no newly-discovered credible evidence, not reasonably available 
when her application was previously considered by the Board and 
the evidence submitted is unfavorable.  Therefore, her request for 
reconsideration should be denied for that reason.

      3.  On timeliness, her request is submitted 8 years, 
4 months, and 21 days after the Board's 26 Sept 2003 decision on 
her initial request for relief, during which a key witness died 
and contains insufficient justification to explain her lengthy 
delay.  Therefore, her request was not submitted within a 
reasonable time and should be denied for that reason.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, four questions were identified 
that needed to be addressed by JAA over and above other portions 
of the advisory:

In the first question to the Board, counsel cites (and partly 
misquotes) a Sep 96 version of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 65-109, 
Preparation of AF Form 938, the AF Form 938, Request and 
Authorization for Active Duty Training/ Active Duty Tour, which 
deals with preparing active duty orders for Reservists.  What 
version of the AFI, or what other authority existed during the 
relevant period (spring 1994)?  

JAA notes this question refers to the applicant’s request for 
reconsideration, which misquotes the 1996-issued AFI 61-109, and 
its para 1.4., including sub para 1.4.9.

However, JAA was unsuccessful locating any version of AFI 65-109 
(or any other written publication or written policy covering its 
subject matter) that was in effect in Apr-May 94, the timeframe at 
issue.  Nonetheless, JAA confirms or concedes here without 
hesitation that even in the absence of a written policy or a 
published instruction in effect in Apr/May 94, the substance of 
this 1996 AFI’s paragraphs very likely existed and surely 
controlled in Apr 94, in practice, merely as a matter of both 
logic and law.  However, a few words of background are required to 
explain their belief and to provide necessary context.

The Board will recall that to "perfect" Sanctuary Zone (SZ) claim, 
two elements must occur:

		a.  The member must make an affirmative claim to the 
statute's protection, in order to show that any subsequent release 
from non-ADT active duty without SAF approval was "involuntary"; 
and,  

		b.  At the time of the member's affirmative claim to 
sanctuary protection, the member must then be "on active duty 
(other than for training.)"  That is to say, a sanctuary claim 
made by a Reservist "in the zone" who serves non-ADT active duty, 
but made prior to entering on that non-ADT active duty or made 
after the Reservist's release therefrom is unavailing.  (Emphasis 
added.)  

Simply put, a member who seeks sanctuary zone protection must, in 
fact, be performing duties that constitute ADS and, while still 
performing those ADS duties, the member must then affirmatively 
assert a claim for sanctuary zone protection.  It avails the 
member nothing to claim sanctuary zone protection after being 
released from active duty.  In light of these two sanctuary zone 
requirements, the substance of the above-shown AFI provisions 
makes perfect sense, whether published in writing in Apr 94 or 
not.

In summary, the two principles stated in AFI 65-109's para 1.4.9. 
permit an amendment to military orders when the duties to be 
performed or actually performed are/were ADT duties, but the 
original order erroneously stated "ADS" or erroneously stated a 
corresponding ADS TCC; and, they bar an amendment to active duty 
orders when the duties performed are/were, in fact, ADS duties and 
the orders correctly state "ADS" (or the corresponding TCC.) JAA 
also believes that even in the absence of any applicable written 
policy in Apr 94, both principles necessarily would have applied 
in Apr-May 94, since each principle, respectively, permits or 
prohibits an amendment to an active duty order when the amendment 
would correct a demonstrable publishing error or would create a 
falsehood.

Finally in this case, JAA believes it's important to recall that 
the 2002-2003 dispositive issue centered on whether or not the 
applicant had made "a timely claim" for sanctuary zone protection.  
In terms of the elements required to perfect a sanctuary zone 
claim (re-stated above, from our 2003 advisory), the key questions 
addressed by JAA and by HQ USAF/JAG in 2003 were:

      - Did the applicant "make an affirmative claim to the 
statute's protection" in Apr-May 94?; and,

      - If so, “at the time of the applicant's affirmative claim to 
sanctuary protection,” was the applicant then “on active duty 
(other than for training);” that is, was the applicant then 
performing ADS duties, or had she previously been released from 
active duty?  

The Board’s 25 Jan 13 request to JAA states, "In the original 
[2002] application, an important question of fact was whether the 
applicant invoked the sanctuary protections of 10 USC 12686 while 
on orders, as she claimed, or whether she only did so after the 
orders expired.”  (Emphasis added.)  The Board's 2003 decision in 
this case concluded, "[We] do not find the applicant's assertions 
or the documentation presented in support of her appeal 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the 
Air Force Offices or Primary Responsibility (OPRs); and, "the 
applicant has failed to sustain her burden …."  It's apparent the 
Board concluded this applicant had not shown she made a sanctuary 
zone claim while she was still serving on active duty.

The Board’s Second Question:

Counsel for the applicant also references Volume 2 of Air Force 
Regulation (AFR) 35-41, which defines ADT and ADS.  What version 
of the regulation was in effect during the relevant period?  What 
were its provisions on ADT and ADS?":

JAA notes they were successful in locating a copy of AFR 35-41, 
Volume 2, Reserve Personnel Policy Reserve Training, issued on 
1 May 92 and have included it with this advisory. (Attachment 1.)  
The terms "ADT" and "ADS," appear in various locations throughout 
that 1992-issued AFR.  However, their examination disclosed no 
occurrences of those terms or their acronyms that have any 
relevance to the applicant’s request, except for that regulation's 
paragraph 6-8, excerpted here: 6-8. Special Tours of ADT and ADS:

		a.  Special tours of ADT may be used to maintain or 
increase the member's mobilization readiness in support of reserve 
needs.  Authorized ADT must provide a primary training content to 
the member during tours involving organized and planned 
specialized skill training, flight training, combat crew training, 
unit conversion training, refresher and proficiency training, 
officer acquisition training, professional development education 
programs, etc.

		b. Special tours of ADS may be used for projects that 
directly support Reserve component programs (located at active or 
Reserve component agencies) in which training for the member is 
not the primary objective, but a significant outcome.  ADS 
projects include annual screening, unit conversions to new weapons 
systems, projects supporting study groups, training sites and 
exercises, short-term mission projects, administrative support 
functions, conferences, and staff visits.

		c. Commander or their designated representatives have 
the authority to determine the appropriate Training Category Code 
(TCC) to be used for ADT and ADS tours and must make sure 
appropriate TCCs are placed in all ADT and ADS orders.  The same, 
above-quoted "para 6-8" from the same 1992-issued AFR 35-41, Vol. 
2 was quoted as shown here, in the United States Court of Federal 
Claims decision Bond v. U.S., 47 Fed.Cl. at Footnote 8, p. 649 
(2000}, a decision that addressed an Air Force Reserve officer's 
sanctuary zone claim.  A copy of that decision was included with 
the applicant's request for reconsideration.  

The Board’s Third Question:  Counsel also cites a federal court 
case, Bond v. U.S., 47 Fed.Cl. 641 (2000).

In Bond, one of the points of contention involved the nature of 
active service performed by a reservist.  According to the court, 
the test for determining whether such service should count for 
sanctuary purposes is the actual nature of the service performed, 
not command's administrative description of such service.  How 
does AFRC/JA interpret this holding and its applicability to the 
present reconsideration?  

JAA agrees the Bond decision of 12 Sep 00 declared, in effect 
(using their words, rather than quoting the court), "the words 
'Active Duty for Training,' or the acronym 'ADT', or the 
corresponding ADT TCC found on an active duty order are not 
controlling, if the substance of the military duties performed is 
convincingly shown to be 'Active Duty for Support'."  However, the 
Bond decision has no direct application to the applicant’s request 
for at least three reasons.

First and foremost, the Bond court applicant to this same Board 
(who subsequently became the Plaintiff before the U.S. Court of 
Federal Claims) had unquestionably made an affirmative claim for 
sanctuary zone protection and he had done so while serving on 
active duty (which the court ultimately determined to be ADS), 
meeting the "timeliness" requirement necessary to perfect his 
sanctuary zone claim.  

In stark contrast to the Bond facts, the dispositive questions 
addressed in this applicant's case have always been and remain, 
"Did this applicant make any claim for sanctuary zone protection 
and if so, did she do so while she was still performing active 
duty and not thereafter?"  It follows that the Bond decision has 
no application to this request because the Bond case did not 
concern itself with the key issue that's present in this request: 
"Did this applicant make an affirmative sanctuary zone claim while 
the applicant was still serving on active duty?" Only if and when 
evidence shows the answer to that question to be "Yes" would the 
additional issues addressed in Bond be relevant at all to this 
applicant (that is, "Was the active duty served by this applicant 
ADS?")  The nature of the active duty performed by this applicant 
(ADT or ADS) is irrelevant if she made no sanctuary zone claim at 
all or if she only made a sanctuary zone claim after she was 
released from active duty.  

Second, in Bond, the applicant received active duty orders that 
were nominally labeled ADT, when the actual purpose of his active 
duty was; to complete a Single Integrated Operating Plan (SIOP) 
alert tour beginning 20 Dec 92 and ending 21 Dec 92.  Again in 
stark contrast, when addressing this applicant neither JAA nor HQ 
USAF/JAG in our prior advisories ever reached the issue of whether 
the military duties performed by this applicant were, in fact, ADS 
duties or were ADT duties (“with ‘primary training content’ as 
part of the duty.)”  Instead, both advisories only focused on 
whether or not this applicant asserted a sanctuary zone claim at 
all and, if she did, whether or not she did so "while serving" on 
active duty -- the “timing element" required to perfect a 
sanctuary zone claim.

The Board concluded in 2003 the applicant's evidence was not 
"sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the 
OPRs."  It's apparent the Board concluded either the applicant had 
not shown she'd made an affirmative sanctuary zone claim at all; 
or, if she did, her sanctuary zone claim was not made "while she 
was serving on active duty," but was made thereafter.  In either 
case, no assertions were made in the provided advisories (and no 
findings were made by the Board) concerning whether the active 
duty performed by this applicant was, in fact, ADS or was ADT.  
That issue remains unaddressed, so Bond is of no help to this 
applicant, not yet, not until and unless the evidence shows she 
made a sanctuary zone claim while still serving on active duty.  

Third, this Board (as opposed to the court) in the Bond matter had 
concluded, "that he was not in the proper duty category ADS to 
apply for sanctuary status, and … unit commanders have the 
discretion to characterize duty as either ADT or ADS," denying his 
application because his orders stated "Special ADT."  Of course, 
the court in Bond denied that degree of discretion to unit 
commanders, concluding as to the applicant’s "SIOP alert" flying 
duty that its, "primary content and purpose was to support the 
active duty mission -- not to conduct reserve training"; and, 
"SIOP alert duty is 'normally considered' an active duty support 
mission;" and, "SIOP duty … was never considered an ADT type 
mission."  Our point is any precedential value the Bond decision 
may have on whether certain active duty performed is ADS or is ADT 
is limited to "SIOP alert duty," obviously not remotely related to 
the "Recruiting Support" purpose reflected on each of the 
applicant's Apr 94 active duty orders, including her final 1994 
active duty order that ran from 18 - 22 Apr 94.  So, Bond is also 
not relevant on whether this applicant's duties performed in Apr 
94 were ADS duties, since they were certainly not "SIOP' alert" 
flying duties.

In sum, Bond would only become relevant to this request when and 
if this applicant submits evidence showing she made an affirmative 
claim to sanctuary zone protection; and, she did so while actually 
serving on active duty.  The prior advisories asserted this 
applicant had not made that showing and the Board's 2003 decision 
in the applicant's case concurred with both advisories on that 
point.  Until this applicant makes that showing to the Board's 
satisfaction, any inquiry into whether the active duty she served 
was, in fact, ADT or was ADS (as required by the Bond decision) is 
unnecessary, because her claim to sanctuary zone protection must 
fail solely because she cannot show she actually made a sanctuary 
zone claim “while she was still serving on active duty.”

The Board Fourth Question:

Besides the authorities cited above, what (if any) regulatory, 
statutory, or case law provisions would have applied in the 
relevant period?

JAA has been unsuccessful in locating published references in 
effect in Apr-May 94 that have not been referred to previously. 
However, there is one sense in which the Bond decision may be of 
some limited use to the Board.  All the factual events described 
in Bond occurred in Dec 92.  In the absence of contradictory 
authorities (and we've found none), it's a reasonable conclusion 
Air Force sanctuary zone policies referred to in Bond, deemed 
applicable to Bond's Dec 92 events, would also have been 
applicable 17 months later, when the Apr-May 94 events involving 
this applicant occurred.  JAA is unaware of any alterations to Air 
Force sanctuary zone policies that occurred during the Dec 92 –to 
- Apr/May 94 timeframe.  Thus, JAA believes the Board may 
reasonably conclude Bond's references to sanctuary zone policies 
applicable to him in 1992 also would have applied to this 
applicant later, in Apr-May 94.  For that reason, there's been no 
need to determine whether the active duty this applicant served 
was, in fact, ADS or was ADT and it follows that many of the 
regulatory authorities quoted in Bond defining ADT and ADS remain 
irrelevant to this request.  Nonetheless, Bond does contain 
references to an applicable Air Force sanctuary zone "policy" that 
will be shown later is relevant to this application.  As the Bond 
court noted, in 1992 (and very likely thereafter, in Apr-May 94), 
"Air Force policy restricted Reservists near the sanctuary zone, 
i.e., those close to or with 18 or more years of active duty 
service, from receiving ADS tours without prior approval."  The 
same Air Force "policy" on sanctuary zone was reaffirmed by the 
Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in its advisory submitted in 
the Bond case. "Regarding question one, ARPC/JA responded that 
prior approval of HQ USAF was required to permit a Reservist to 
voluntarily enter the sanctuary zone.”  

In addition, the applicant's own words, written by her much closer 
in time (in 1996) to the Apr-May 94 events than any other 
documents she authored and submitted to the Board, flatly 
contradict the assertions she made in her 2002 Application for 
Correction and in her 2012 request for reconsideration, compelling 
the Board, in our view, to deny her request -- on the merits.  

The reliability (credibility) of the applicant's memory in her 
2002 application (eight years after the fact) and in her 2012 
request for reconsideration (18 years after the fact) is called 
into serious question, in light of the words she used in her two 
1996 letters to her Congressman.  Her 1996 words are entitled to 
far more weight because: (1) written closer in time (in 1996) to 
the 1994 events, when memory is clearer than it would be years 
later; and, (2) their content obviously undercuts the applicant's 
ultimate goal and, thus, should be viewed by the Board as "against 
her interests", therefore far more candid than later-made, 
contradictory assertions; and, (3) it's also fair to assume when a 
constituent writes to a Congressman, the constituent would likely 
conclude a Member of Congress can and will access the truth, 
motivating the constituent to take greater care when writing such 
a letter.

JAA goes on to explain reasons why the applicant’s request should 
be denied based on timeliness and newly discovered relevant 
evidence that was previously available to the Board.

A complete JAA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 11 Apr 13, the application was administratively closed at 
counsel’s request (Exhibit M).  On 17 Dec 13, the counsel 
requested the application be reopened.

Counsel refutes almost all of the opinions noted in almost 
50 pages long- 27 pages, single-spaced legal opinion, with 
20 pages of exhibits.  

Counsel notes after reading this 2013 advisory opinion and 
exhibits, the only purpose of such absurd length is to overwhelm 
the AFBCMR by throwing up a grab-bag of every trivial and nitpicky 
argument. The other purpose of this machine-gun spray in every 
direction - is to obscure the indisputable facts in the case, and 
the legal issues they raise- the applicant's inquiries about 
sanctuary during her last ADS tour prompted the unit tour to 
illegally change the orders to ADT during that last tour, then the 
unit refused to sign (certify) her original ADS orders.

One such distracting smoke-screen is the condescending 3-page 
lecture on the technical points of English grammar and syntax, 
along with a 6-page "Attachment 3" showing proper usage.  This 
lecture presumes the applicant's case fails by her not using 
proper English etiquette in articulating her claim.  The 
2013 advisory opinion keeps referring to one collateral letter 
written (without counsel) in 1996 to her congressman-while 
ignoring the underlying suspect orders, and what she submitted to 
the BCMR in 2002 and 2003.  In addition to pro se before her 
Congressman and to BCMR, she did not possess a college degree, but 
an airman.  Court case law on BCMR adjudications, citing the 
Supreme Court, say that when it is not explicitly clear that a 
certain claim was raised … as long as there is some evidence to 
suggest that he did * * * the [BCMR] agency must take pains to 
protect the rights of pro se parties against the consequences of 
technical errors.  Calloway v. Brownlee.  Secretary of Army, 366 
F.Supp.2d 43, 45 (D.D.C. 2005)[emphasis added].

		But here, the BCMR and advisory opinion take great pains 
to erect a hyper technical barrier on a pro se applicant's 
grammar.  This blinded the agency from looking deeper at the 
suspect orders, amendments, and other evidence. It is 
linguistically sufficient to "suggest" a sanctuary claim when the 
applicant said to the BCMR in her 24 Mar 03 letter "I tried to 
acquire Sanctuary in Apr 94 through the [unit]."  Her 26 Sept 02, 
BCMR letter states that prior to end of ADS duty she "couldn't get 
my orders signed, that's when I started asking questions [to 
various officials whom I could go to get sanctuary]."  This 
evidence, along with the switched ADS orders to ADT during the 
tour - confirm the unit was prompted by the applicant's inquiries 
to perfect her sanctuary claim.  So that is why they refused to 
sign/certify the original orders (AF Form 938).  

Another phony argument is an alleged 'key witness' to rebut the 
new affidavit, but such witness is now deceased (former recruiting 
Chief).  This is another phony distraction.  This is not new 
evidence presented in 2012, rather, a reiteration that part of 
what he said on 25 Sep 02- then stating that once the recruiting 
chief found the applicant could claim sanctuary, every effort was 
made to change her duty status.  The witness’s testimony in 2012, 
simply repeats this in paragraph 5's opening sentence as 
background.  So the 2013 Advisory Opinion's argument is suspect 
since the former recruiting Chief in 2002 was not interviewed then 
in the applicant’s claim involving the affidavit.

In 2004, this new evidence, with these additional details was 
provided to the applicant; however, due to her health problems, 
she was unable to appeal.  The new affidavit goes on to note that 
during 1994 ADS duty, he learned from others in the unit the 
applicant was asking questions to request sanctuary because her 
superiors would not help her. He also recalls that the applicant 
told him at the time that she had been asked to pick up her 
amendments before the tour ended.  Moreover, the amendment shows 
they were issued/approved on 19 April during the applicant's last 
ADS duty (18 -22 April).  There is nothing to dispute.

The 2012 affidavit was replied to in 2013 by the only relevant 
witness, former CBPO Superintendent, as his new sworn statement.  
First, what he says is not credible.  But what is more important 
is the manner in which the 2013 statement was prepared.  He admits 
he was asked to write a statement after rereading portions of his 
2002 statement within the narrative context of entire 2013 
advisory opinion-representing the position of the Air Force 
Reserve on the new evidence.  His statement would be credible if 
he had simply reread his 2002 statement then 2012 affidavit alone.  
This suggests not only the questionable legal ethics of the author 
of the 2013 advisory opinion, but taints its overall reliability.

The advisory opinion also wants the BCMR to rigidly apply formal 
MSPB adjudicatory standards requiring mental incompetence as 
necessary to justify the applicant’s 8 year reconsideration delay 
from the 2004 BCMR decision.  The opinion implies that it is not 
enough to excuse the delay even for a near invalid with 
debilitating Multiple Sclerosis (MS) disease of wasting muscles 
with cataracts and heart abnormalities, and co-morbid diabetes, 
and spinal arthritis.  Court case law on BCMR adjudications, 
citing the Supreme Court, says that the relation of the military 
to its members must be like a compassionate friendly uncle to look 
beyond nit-picky details-

The 2013 advisory opinion sidesteps her new claim on the merits. 
For example, the questions begged by refusal of her unit to sign 
her AF Form 938 during her last ADS tour.  This confirms the 
veracity of the applicant's inquiries at that time to claim 
sanctuary had prompted the unit to quickly substitute ADT 
amendments during the last tour.  The former CBPO Superintendent 
admits that the unit had inadvertently allowed the applicant to 
enter sanctuary to perform legitimate ADS duties.  But 
'inadvertence' and amendments are irrelevant.  The former CBPO 
Superintendent and the unit dodge this arguing that amendment was 
long after ADS tours were completed to prevent opportunities to 
request retention.  This is false.  

The next issue ignored is the 2003 BCMR erroneously agreed with 
him that no one knew- not even the applicant - during her ADS 
tours that she was in Sanctuary, and thus "her three sets of 
orders were amended after-the-fact."  But there is nothing in the 
record that supports this.  

		First, why then does her ADS order (previously approved 
by the command) not contain a certifying signature that it was 
completed? 

		Second, neither advisory opinion in 2003 or 2012 
provides a copy of the AF Form 938 orders signed.  Nor have they 
provided any other explanation.  She was not AWOL.  Any airman, 
particularly an NCO, would start asking questions for a unit 
refusing to certify an approved AF Form 938, to not only accrue 
points, but to get paid.  Even the current AFRC guides require 
that this AF Form 938 must be certified to receive payment from 
the Reserve Pay Office (RPO).  

		Thirdly, the amendment from ADS to ADT was "issued and 
approved" on 19 Apr 94 during her last ADS tour (18-22 April).  
(AF IMT 973 Change of Administrative Orders, signed 19 Apr 94 by 
"issuing/approving official...,"); and see the Affidavit, where 
the applicant’s orders were secretly amended to ADT during the 
last duty period when word spread that she was asking everyone 
about trying to claim sanctuary; attempt to withhold her the 
amendment until after her duty was completed).   

		Fourth, the record flatly contradicts the assertion that 
no one knew during the applicant's ADS tours that she was in 
sanctuary, and thus her orders were amended after-the-fact." The 
change to the ADS orders was reversed during the tour when 
prompted by her red-flag inquiries throughout the unit for someone 
to sign the original AF Form 938 orders.  The only thing after-
the-fact was the routine housekeeping "authentication" stamp on 
3 May 94 to the AF Form 973 already approved locally on 19 Apr.

This is a case of an AF reserve unit-similar to that in Bond - 
that manipulated ADS records then went beyond to actively obstruct 
an airman's efforts to receive sanctuary retirement.  The case is 
tragic in that in 2003 the applicant was a disabled pro se 
applicant, without college degree.  These factors further hindered 
adequate case presentation before the AFBCMR.  The classic 
duplicity of revoking previously approved benefits after reaching 
18 years active duty was condemned in Bond, and analogous in 
Wagner.  In the applicant's case, the record's contradiction of 
the unit's self-serving allegations are why the 2013 advisory 
opinion became apoplectic to reply with 50 pages to overwhelm the 
BCMR through irrelevant, convoluted legalese. It is also a 
disservice and waste of resources for the BCMR and staff to pour 
through this distracting drivel.

Counsel’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit N.


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.  In earlier findings, the Board determined there was 
insufficient evidence to warrant corrective action.  We have 
reviewed the additional documentation provided by the applicant 
and counsel, including the affidavit from the same witness who 
provided a statement in the 2003 application; however, considering 
this matter again, we do not find the evidence provided overcomes 
the rationale expressed in the previous board decision or that the 
previous decision should be reversed.  While the applicant and 
counsel has provided additional arguments and court cases which in 
their view are similar in context to the applicant’s, in our view, 
the applicant has not presented substantial evidence that she has 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  In this respect, we 
note aside from what counsel calls distracting drivel, as pointed 
out by JAA, we find it is more likely than not that the applicant 
failed to invoke sanctuary while on orders, no matter which type 
of orders they may have been.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the requested relief.


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-2002-03160 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit I.  Record of Proceedings, dated 26 Sep 03.
	Exhibit J.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit K.  Letter, AFRC/JA, dated 13 Mar 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit L.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 13.
Exhibit M.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Apr 13.
Exhibit N.  Letter, Counsel, dated 3 Dec 13, w/atchs.