RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-02620
            INDEX CODE 110.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason on his DD Form 214 not reflect “Fraudulent Entry”
and he be reinstated into the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His enlistment was not fraudulent. The South Carolina Solicitor, Fifth
Judicial Circuit, told him all charges against  him  were  dropped  or
dismissed. He voluntarily attended a state drug program;  he  was  not
ordered or required to participate. He provides a statement  from  the
Solicitor to that effect, as well as a South Carolina Law  Enforcement
Division Records Check indicating he has no record.

The applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  11  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted from the applicant’s  military
personnel records.

On 7 Sep 01, the applicant signed AF Form 2030, USAF Drug and  Alcohol
Certificate, indicating he had never  used,  experimented,  possessed,
supplied or distributed marijuana or other illegal drugs/narcotics  or
undergone rehabilitation for drug or alcohol abuse.

The applicant completed DD Form 1966/1, Record of Military Processing,
on 12 Oct 01, indicating he had not tried,  used,  sold,  supplied  or
possessed any narcotic, hallucinogen or cannabis.

On 12 Nov 01, he again signed AF Form 2030 (re-certification  at  time
of  enlistment)  indicating  he  had  not  used  any  drug,  including
marijuana, since originally completing the form. He  was  subsequently
enlisted in the Air Force Reserves on 12 Nov 01 in the rank of  airman
first class (A1C) and assigned to Charleston AFB, SC.

On 9 Apr 02, he was ordered to active duty at Lackland  AFB,  TX,  for
basic military training (BMT) from 13 May thru 21 Jun 02 and technical
training from 26 Jun through 6 Aug 02.

The applicant’s BMT records reflect he struck another  trainee  during
an altercation in the dormitory on 23 May 02. He received a Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR)  on  24  May  02  for  this  incident.  The  applicant
acknowledged receipt on 24 May 02 but did not rebut.

On 24 May 02,  the  applicant  was  interviewed  by  a  senior  master
sergeant, an AFRC liaison. In statements, the applicant indicated that
in 1994-95 he and his brother-in-law were arrested for  possession  of
marijuana; however, his brother accepted responsibility and he had  no
knowledge of the drug  in  his  brother-in-law’s  possession.  In  one
statement he also indicated that in  1997  he  was  pulled  over  when
driving from a party but did not know the passengers had  cannabis  in
the car. One month later when he was driving a co-worker  to  work  he
was arrested for possession with intent to distribute cannabis  within
a half mile of a school. He contended the drug was in the  co-worker’s
backpack. In another statement, he admitted he got caught twice trying
to sell cannabis in Feb and Mar 97. He indicated he thought that  five
years after getting his record expunged he did not need  to  tell  his
recruiter or obtain a waiver.  He added that his recruiter was not  at
fault and that he had lied to get into BMT.  [A  copy  of  the  actual
criminal  charges  is  not  included  in  the  applicant’s  submission
(Exhibit A) or his  records  (Exhibit B).  A  letter  from  the  South
Carolina Solicitor, Fifth  Judicial  Circuit,  dated  18  Jun  02  and
provided by the  applicant  at  Exhibit A,  indicates  he  voluntarily
entered the Richland County Drug Court Program in May 97, that he  was
not ordered or required to participate, and he successfully  completed
the program  in  Aug  98.  All  charges  against  the  applicant  were
dismissed at that time.]

On 28 May 02, the applicant was classified as a fraudulent enlistee.

On 31 May 02, the commander  notified  the  applicant  he  was  to  be
discharged for fraudulent entry. This was  based  on  the  applicant’s
failure  to  inform  his  recruiter  of  a  previous  moral  violation
(possession with intent to  distribute).  The  applicant  acknowledged
receipt of notification on 31 May 02 and,  after  consulting  counsel,
waived his right to submit statements. The applicant was  subsequently
recommended for discharge for fraudulent entry.  The  case  was  found
legally sufficient on 12 Jun 02 and approved on 13 Jun 02.

On 17 Jun 02, the  applicant  was  given  an  entry  level  separation
(uncharacterized) for fraudulent entry and discharged in the grade  of
A1C.

On 24 Oct 02, the applicant’s DD Form 214 was corrected to remove  the
1 month and 10 days of active service reflected in Section 12c because
it was nullified by his fraudulent enlistment.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS provides their rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/JA indicates “the applicant states his recruiter  advised  him
that since his case had been dismissed he should not indicate  on  the
form he had used marijuana.”  AFPC/JA does not find it plausible  that
the recruiter would have advised the applicant to lie on that  or  any
other part of the form, nor has the applicant provided any evidence to
support this contention.  Most likely, the applicant  did  not  reveal
the full extent of his drug involvement to his recruiter. “Now that it
has come to light, the applicant is trying to shift to  his  recruiter
the responsibility he himself held for  answering  truthfully  on  the
form.” By his own admission, the applicant  was  involved  with  drugs
prior to entering the Air Force. When his drug history came to  light,
the commander took proper steps in recommending discharge according to
AFI 36-3208. AFI 36-3208 also allows a commander to request  a  waiver
in cases of fraudulent entry. Apparently the commander did not believe
the applicant was a “good risk” since in his short  time  in  the  Air
Force he had already received an LOR and had other derogatory comments
in his training. The applicant’s DD Form 214 should not be changed nor
should he be reinstated.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 22 Nov 02 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

AMENDED AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 Jan 03, the  AFBCMR  Staff  pointed  out  to  HQ  AFPC/JA  that,
although their advisory asserts the  applicant  was  trying  to  shift
responsibility  for  his  untruthful  answers  to  the  recruiter,  no
evidence of  such  an  attempt  could  be  found  in  the  applicant’s
available records.  In fact, his statements in his military  personnel
records reveal that he was not blaming the recruiter and that he  lied
to get  into  BMT.  As  a  result,  HQ  AFPC/JA  reaccomplished  their
advisory, omitting their comments with regard to  the  recruiter.  The
amended advisory is otherwise identical to their  original  evaluation
and still recommends denial.

A copy of the amended evaluation is at Exhibit F.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AMENDED AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts he was arrested only once for  selling  cannabis
in 1997; however, there was another charge  put  against  him  earlier
that year for possession. He is not  proud  of  what  he  did  or  the
company he kept. It has taken a long time for him to change the errors
of his ways. He indicates he was never told there could  be  a  waiver
for [fraudulent entry] as indicated in  the  advisory.  He  claims  he
received the LOR three days after he was  notified  of  his  impending
separation, that he received the LOR because  he  got  upset  with  an
airman after he was notified of his discharge.  [Note:  The  applicant
acknowledged receipt of the LOR on  24  May  02  for  the  23  May  02
incident and acknowledged receipt of  the  Notification  of  Discharge
Letter on 31 May 02--See Statement of Facts.]

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

_____________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After carefully  considering  all
the available documentation, we are not persuaded the narrative reason
for the applicant’s discharge should be changed. His  contentions  are
duly noted; however, we do not find these  uncorroborated  assertions,
in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence
of the record and the rationale provided by the Air  Force.   In  this
regard, the applicant signed documents indicating he had  never  used,
experimented with, possessed, supplied  or  distributed  marijuana  or
other illegal drugs, or  had  undergone  rehabilitation  for  drug  or
alcohol use. However, these assertions were  later  discovered  to  be
untrue. Further, the commander apparently believed the  applicant  was
not a good risk and his retention would not be in the Air Force’s best
interests. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the  commander
exceeded his authority or  that  the  reason  for  the  discharge  was
inaccurate or unwarranted. We therefore 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 an injustice. In view
of the above and  absent  persuasive  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
conclude this appeal should be denied.

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(s)   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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 3 April 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member
                 Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-02620 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 22 Oct 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 19 Nov 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA (amended), dated 19 Nov 02.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 03.




                                   JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN, JR.
                                   Panel Chair