RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01836
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for discharge be changed  to  show  that  he  did
complete  a  commissioning  program;  that  he  be   commissioned   as
originally ordered by Special Order AH----, dated 5 Jan 81; that he be
promoted  commensurate  with  his  advanced   degrees   and   military
experience to the grade of major (0-4) with credit for at least  three
(3) years of commissioned service.   At  a  minimum  he  requests  his
Reenlistment  Eligibility  (RE)  code  and  his   separation   program
designator (SPD) code be changed to reflect  codes  that  indicate  an
honorable discharge without prejudice against reenlistment.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had completed all required  training  at  Officer  Training  School
(OTS) except participate in the graduation parade.  He was recommended
for elimination from OTS based on “anomalies” in the  results  of  his
background investigation, and he feels his elimination and  subsequent
recommendation by the school commandant that he  not  be  reconsidered
for OTS at a later date was based  more  on  expediency  than  on  his
official record and accompanying explanations.

In support of his application, the applicant has provided a letter  of
recommendation  from  his  current  wing  commander,   a   letter   of
explanation to his commander and a substantial part of  his  personnel
record.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, currently a member of the --- Air  National  Guard  (--
ANG), was selected on 28 July 1980 to attend Air Force OTS.  He  began
OTS on 3 October 1980 and completed the course as evidenced by Special
Order (SO) AH----, which appointed the applicant a Reserve of the  Air
Force 2nd lieutenant, effective  13 January  1981.   However,  he  was
recommended for elimination on 13 January 1981 and that recommendation
was approved on         23 January 1981.  His elimination was based on
“Unfavorable Results of Security Investigation.”  He  received  an  RE
code of 4L,  which  means,  “Separated  Commissioning  Program.”   The
narrative reason for separation was “Failed to Complete  Commissioning
Program” and an SPD code of “KHD”, which means  “Failure  to  Complete
Commissioning Program.”
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOATS/JA reviewed this application and recommended denial.  JA states
that the applicant was discharged from OTS without prejudice, that  he
admitted to 2 Article 15’s while enlisted in  the  US  Army,  that  he
admitted to drug use and for being punished for it.   JA  states  that
the applicant failed to  reveal  vital  information  that  would  have
affected his qualification for OTS when he  applied.   The  Air  Force
security investigation uncovered some “bounced” checks  and  applicant
admits to some inadequacy in balancing his checkbook.   JA  recommends
that no changes be made to the applicant’s record.  The commander  and
the commandant made the determination that  the  applicant  failed  to
disclose pertinent information when applying to OTS and  disenrollment
was appropriate.

AFOATS/JA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  They  reiterate,  in  large  part,  the
comments from the JA evaluation.   DPPRS  states  that  the  applicant
provided neither new information nor  any  evidence  of  an  error  or
injustice that occurred during his separation.  DPPRS notes  that  the
discharge  was  within  the  discretionary  power  of  the   discharge
authority of the day.

DPPRS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the applicant’s request to change his RE code  and
found that the applicant was eliminated from  OTS  due  to  fraudulent
enlistment.  He failed to report a history of financial mismanagement,
drug involvement, and two Article 15s, which was discovered by  an  AF
background investigation.  DPPAE recommends denial of the  applicant’s
request and states that the applicant received the proper RE code upon
his elimination from OTS.

DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that while his intent was not to have  the  Board
commission, promote, and give him constructive credit, but  that  this
was the desired outcome of himself and his  current  commander  should
the Board see fit to correct his record.  He  would  like  to  address
several  “errors”  in  the  official  responses   (OPR   Evaluations),
submitted in response to his application to the Board.

Regarding the pre-service use of marijuana, the applicant states  that
he never bought, sold or distributed marijuana but  confessed  to  the
Army Security Agency (ASA) that he  only  experimented  with  it.   He
notes that he did not volunteer  the  experimentation  with  marijuana
prior to the findings of the Air Force security investigation  because
he was not required to do so unless he had a  record  of  arrest,  had
sold or distributed it.

Regarding the “bounced” checks, the applicant states that he  did  not
reveal them in  his  application  to  Officer  Training  School  (OTS)
because he did not know that that part of his financial history was an
issue.  He notes that it had not been an issue for a  long  time.   He
infers that he did not suffer from  an  inadequacy  in  balancing  his
check book but, as a university student, he was usually short of money
and would write a check and either forget to update his check register
or forget the amount of the  check  and  enter  an  incorrect  amount,
thereby causing him to bounce checks.  He  states  that  no  one  ever
suffered a finiancial loss as a result of his action  except  himself,
as he immediately paid any penalties or made up the shortfall.

Regarding the two Article 15’s he received while in the United  States
Army (USA), he states that while he knew of one of the Article 15’s in
his military record, he was not aware of the second.  He  argues  that
he did, in fact, reveal circumstances of a  civilian  incident  (court
records were sealed) that he feels was a far more serious detriment to
his application that should indicate that he had no intent to defraud.
 He contends that he received the second Article 15 and was advised by
Army counsel to appeal the Article 15 and that it  would  probably  be
dropped anyway as the applicant was leaving the Army.   After  several
weeks  of  leave,  the  applicant  returned  to  his  unit  and  began
outprocessing.  He states that since nothing further  was  said  about
the Article 15 and the suggested appeal he assumed it had been dropped
or rescinded.

The applicant believes that his commander at  OTS  took  the  path  of
least  resistance,  in  eliminating  him  from  OTS,   in   spite   of
recommendations to the contrary.   Additionally,  he  faults  the  OPR
evaluations as results of casual reading  and  inattention  to  detail
that has led to wrong assumptions  incorrect  statements  by  the  OPR
evaluations.

His complete rebuttal 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  of  command  expediency  and  his
labeling of previously undisclosed unfavorable information,  uncovered
by a  security  clearance  investigation,  as  anomalies,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by  the  Air  Force.   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.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2002-01836 in Executive Session on 1 July 2003, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFOATS/JA, dated 28 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 19 May 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 June 03.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair