Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-02978
Original file (BC-2001-02978.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                                 ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

            INDEX CODE:  102.01





In the  applicant’s  request  for  reconsideration,  he  requests  his  Date
Initial Entry Uniformed Service (DIEUS) and Total  Active  Federal  Military
Service Date (TAFMSD) be changed from 11 September 1980 to 29 May 1968.   He
also requests his service date established under  Title  10,  United  States
Code (USC) Section 1405 be adjusted.



Applicant retired from the Air Force on 31  July  2002  under  AFI  36-3203,
Sufficient Service for Retirement, with  an  honorable  discharge.   He  had
served 21 years and 8 months on active duty.

On 2 May  2002,  the  applicant’s  requests  that  his  Date  Initial  Entry
Uniformed Service (DIEUS) and Total Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date
(TAFMSD) be changed from 11 September 1980 to 29 May 1968, and  his  10  USC
1405 service date be adjusted, were considered and denied by the  Air  Force
Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) on 2 May 2002.

A complete copy of the  Record  of  Proceedings,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit F.

On   8   August   2003,   Counsel   submitted   applicant’s   request    for
reconsideration, contending that he enlisted into the  Marine  Corps  on  29
May  1968,  establishing  DIEUS  and  TAFMSD.   The  applicant  provided   a
memorandum in support of his application to  correct  his  military  record.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.



AFPC/DPPAOR states that the applicant still is not providing a copy  of  the
enlistment contract.   The  documentation  provided  only  acknowledges  the
names listed in the newspaper article  as  “reporting”  for  induction.   It
does not state they were actually  enlisted  in  the  United  States  Marine
Corps (USMC).  In order to verify his  actual  date  of  enlistment  in  the
USMC, the enlistment contract would be the only document that clearly  would
state the date the oath  was  administered.   Therefore,  the  correct  Date
Initial Entry Uniformed Service (DIEUS) is still 11 September 1980.

A copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit H.

AFPC/JA states that the paramount issue is whether  the  applicant  actually
enlisted into the armed forces on 29 May 1968 for the purposes of  effecting
the date he originally entered the military.

There is no evidence he was ever accepted for induction into the Marines  in
May 1968.  By his own admission, the applicant was never ordered  to  report
for duty nor was  he  ever  paid  after  being  sent  home  from  the  MEPS.
Moreover, he never received any discharge paperwork from  the  Marines.   In
the documents he completed prior  to  receiving  a  commission  in  the  Air
Force, the applicant acknowledged he had been rejected for military  service
in 1968 because of medical conditions.  His current  attempt  to  have  that
medical rejection recharacterized as accepted for induction  and  placed  on
inactive duty is inaccurate.  Even assuming  he  did  erroneously  take  the
oath prior to receiving a physical examination, his injuries  at  that  time
made him ineligible as a matter of law for  induction,  thus  rendering  the
oath inconsequential.

No explanation exists for the reason the Selective  Service  Board  and  the
Marines never contacted  the  applicant  after  he  was  sent  home  by  the
Indianapolis MEPS.  Whether their lack of communication with him was due  to
administrative  oversights  or  his  service  was  simply  not  required  is
immaterial.  Instead, the salient issue in this petition is at the time  the
applicant was processed through the Indianapolis MEPS in  May  1968  he  was
physically disqualified for service and was never inducted into  the  United
States military.  JA stated the applicant’s current DIEUS,  TAFSMD,  and  10
USC 1405 dates properly  reflect  when  he  actually  entered  the  military
service  of  the  United  States.   Therefore,  JA  recommends   denial   of
applicant’s request.

A copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit I.



In the Conclusion and Argument section, counsel  states,  it  has  been  his
experience that the advisory agencies of the  service  BCMRS  have,  in  the
vast majority of cases, rendered reasoned opinions that are consistent  with
the facts presented to them, and with the regulations and  law  that  govern
the case.  It has further been  his  experience  that  the  BCMR  takes  its
statutory charter to “correct injustice” seriously  and  proceeds  honorably
to  that  end  in  a  fashion   that   is   not   adversarial   in   nature.
Disappointingly, the two advisory opinions  submitted  to  this  Board  seem
less concerned with doing justice and more concerned  with  maintaining  the
status quo.  The former opinion puts little effort into a work product  that
may  be  helpful  to  a   just   resolution,   and   the   latter   opinion,
disappointingly, puts entirely much effort into  deflection  of  the  issues
and the facts that support those issues.

Counsel submits, in the applicant’s behalf, that an  abundance  of  evidence
exists to show convincingly the facts as they have presented them  are  true
and accurate.   Because  some  of  the  source  documents  that  would  have
corroborated  these  facts  have   been   destroyed   in   compliance   with
governmental regulations, and without the fault of applicant, is  no  reason
to deny your applicant.

A copy of Counselor’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.



1.  In earlier findings in this  case,  the  Board  determined  insufficient
relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence  of  error
or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence provided to date, we affirm  the
earlier decision by the Board in this matter.  In this regard, we  note  the
Air Force evaluations, and in particular, the advisory  opinion  by  AFPC/JA
and find the evidence  by  the  applicant  insufficient  to  overcome  their
assessments of this case.  While the applicant has provided some  collateral
information concerning the events of  29 May  1968,  when  he  reported  for
induction, he has provided  no  documentary  evidence  to  substantiate  his
claim that he, in  fact,  was  accepted  for  induction  into  the  military
service at that time.  In the absence of such evidence, we  agree  with  the
opinion and recommendation of the AFPC/JA and adopt  its  rationale  as  the
basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s  request  for  changes  to
his DIEUS, TAFMS and 10 USC 1405 service dates is not favorably considered.

2.  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 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 14 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                 Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 14 May 2002, w/atchs.
      Exhibit G. Counsel's Letter, dated 8 Aug 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 27 Jul 04.
      Exhibit I. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 30 Aug 04.
      Exhibit J. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Sep 04.
      Exhibit K. Counsel’s Response, dated 21 Sep 04, w/atchs.

                             MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103025

    Original file (0103025.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03025 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Date of Initial Entry Military Service (DIEMS)/Date of Initial Entry Uniformed Services (DIEUS) be changed from 17 July 1986 to 5 January 1987. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPAOR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-02517

    Original file (BC-2002-02517.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that he agrees with AFPC’s summary of his basis for request except for their final statement, “…there was a delay in signing the required paperwork needed to make the correction to his DIEUS.” He states, actually, there was an AFROTC-induced delay in processing his four-year scholarship award delaying his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03769

    Original file (BC-2003-03769.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant was held in pretrial confinement from 11 November 2002 to 6 February 2003, causing a total lost time of 88 days. The Air Force also did not err in characterizing the time the applicant spent in pretrial confinement as lost time. Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102203

    Original file (0102203.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPAOR reviewed the applicant’s request and states that upon entry to active duty, applicant’s DIEUS date was established in accordance with AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, Table 1, Rule 13, giving the applicant a DIEUS of 21 July 1986, IAW his DD Form 4, dated 21 July 1986 (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01113

    Original file (BC-2005-01113.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01113 INDEX CODE: 112.05 COUNSEL: No HEARING DESIRED: Yes MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 6 OCT 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records reflect a Date of Initial Entry into Military Service/Uniform Service (DIEMS/DIEUS) and a Total Active Military Service Date (TAFMSD) of 4 Dec 86, rather than 21 Apr 86, so he will be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00828

    Original file (BC-2004-00828.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, JA believes the Air Force did not err in characterizing the time the applicant spent in confinement as time lost. Title 10 United States Code (USC) Section 972(a)(3), states “an enlisted member of an armed force who is confined by military or civilian authorities for more than one day in connection with a trial, whether before, during or after trial, is liable after his return to full duty, to serve the time lost in confinement by adding it to the member’s term of enlistment.”...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02238

    Original file (BC-2005-02238.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    This is also the applicant’s pay date. Due to the fact the applicant was obligated 22 Oct 80 and his eligibility started in Aug 81, his request should be denied. The applicant’s service dates were computed correctly in accordance with AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00528

    Original file (BC-2004-00528.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Because the victim could not be located, his aggravated assault charge was dismissed without prejudice and the case was closed. DPPAOR states the governing statute, 10 USC 972, requires that a member be charged lost time for all time spent in confinement. We find no evidence of an error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant's submission, we do not believe he has been the victim of an injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000777

    Original file (0000777.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00777 INDEX CODE: 113.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 78 days of Active Duty Training (ADT) he spent as a legal intern on an educational delay be credited towards his total active federal military service date (TAFMSD) and his 10 U.S.C. Therefore, in light of the date on applicant's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03222

    Original file (BC-2003-03222.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 7 May 03 he was notified that because his DIEMS date was 8 Nov 85 and not 17 Sep 86 he received an erroneous CSB payment. On 7 May 02, he received notification that due to problems with the military personnel data system at the time of his election, he was not entitled to the CSB payment because his DIEMS date was prior to 1 Aug 86. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...