RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00043
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His administrative discharge be overturned.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records  are  in  error  or  unjust  based  on  the  following:
unauthorized DSN phone calls for  personal  use;  possession  of  a
forged DD Form 1853 (Authentication of Reserve  Status  for  Travel
Eligibility);   misrepresentation   of    unit    of    assignment;
misrepresentation of rank/grade, and disrespect to  a  senior  non-
commissioned officer.

Through his own investigation, since Mar 93, he determined that the
circumstances surrounding his discharge from the Air Force were the
result of identity theft.

In support of the  applicant’s  appeal,  he  submitted  a  personal
statement, with attachments (additional documents  associated  with
the issues  cited  in  his  contentions),  along  with  letters  of
character  reference  and  recommendations  from  former   training
instructors, associates, and co-workers.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the period of service under review, the  applicant  served
honorably in the US Marine Corps (Reserve  and  Active  components)
from 27 Feb 73 until 26 Feb 79.  He was  in  civilian  status  from
27 Feb 79 to 10 Aug  79.   He  reenlisted  back  in  the  USMCR  on
11 Aug 79 until his discharge on  10  Aug  80.   He  was  again  in
civilian status from 11 Aug 80 until 12 Sep 80.

On 13 Sep 80, he enlisted in the Air National Guard for a period of
3  years  in  the  grade  of  airman  first  class  (E-3/A1C).   On
25 Oct 82, he was promoted  to  the  grade  of  sergeant.   He  was
discharged 15 May 83 and remained in civilian until 9 Sep  84.   on
10 Sep 84, he enlisted in the ANG in the grade of sergeant with  an
effective date and date of rank of 10 Sep 84.   He  had  continuous
service in the Air Reserve  Component  (Reserve  and  Air  National
Guard) until 18 Jan 89.

On 19 Jan 89, he enlisted in the Army National Guard in  the  grade
of specialist (E-4/SPC)until  his  discharge  on  25  Apr  90.   He
reenlisted in  the  ANG  on  26  Apr  90  until  his  discharge  on
9 May 92. 

On 10 Aug 92, he reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve for  a  period
of 5 years in the grade of sergeant.

On 2  Feb  95,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant for a pattern of misconduct,
for  discreditable  involvement  with  military  authorities.   The
specific reasons for the proposed action were:

On  or  about  23  Aug  92,  applicant  made  an  unauthorized  and
fraudulent use of a DSN phone for an offnet long distance call that
was personal (to his mother).  On 5 Oct 92, he admitted making  the
phone call as a part of Fraud, Waste and Abuse  complaint  he  made
because the DSN operator was being rude to him.

On or about 2  Feb  93,  he  used  a  forged  DD  Form  1853  while
representing his unit and rank; wearing the uniform of  a  TSgt  to
obtain Space A travel.

On 5 Feb 95, the wing Staff Judge  Advocate  found  the  case  file
legally sufficient  to  justify  an  administrative  discharge  for
misconduct and recommended that the applicant be separated  with  a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

By letter, dated 3 Mar 95, HQ AFRES/DPAA  forwarded  the  applicant
the Notification of Initiation of Separation Action under  AFI  36-
3209 through certified mail.  On 11 May 95, the major command Staff
Judge Advocate found the case file legally sufficient for discharge
and recommended a general discharge.  On 25 May 95,  the  discharge
authority  approved  a   general   (under   honorable   conditions)
discharge.

On 14 Jun 95, the applicant was discharged under the provisions  of
AFI 36-3209, with service characterized as general (under honorable
conditions), and was issued a reenlistment  eligibility  status  of
“Ineligible.”

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative
report which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFRC/JAJ recommends that no relief be granted.  They state  that
the applicant alleges his case involves “identity theft,” but  find
no relevance to the issue.  According to documents provided by  the
applicant, phone service was fraudulently established in his  name.
He provided a letter from GTE  releasing  him  from  all  financial
responsibility from any  debts  associated  with  the  unauthorized
telephone charges.  A  police  report  states  that  the  applicant
suspects his brother of perpetuating this fraud from 20 Aug  96  to
25 Dec 96.  Applicant also states  that  someone  used  his  social
security number to commit crimes.  However, they found that none of
the information relates to the reasons that he was discharged.  All
of the acts committed by the applicant occurred  during  the  92-93
timeframe.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFRC/DPM recommended no relief be granted and agreed with the HQ
AFRC/JAJ evaluation.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant submitted a response to the evaluation, with attachments.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

___________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a  thorough
review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are
not  persuaded  that  his  uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force.  The applicant asserts that he  was  the
victim of “identity theft,”  however,  we  do  not  find  that  the
evidence provided by  the  applicant  substantiates  a  correlation
between the events which subsequently  led  to  his  administrative
discharge and the suspected criminal activity of  some  members  of
his family which occurred after his discharge.  Therefore, we agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force  offices  of
primary responsibility and adopt the  rationale  expressed  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his
burden of having suffered either 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  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 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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2002-00043 in Executive Session on 22 October  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFRC/JAJ, dated 27 Mar 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 30 Apr 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair