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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2001-02978
            INDEX CODE:  102.01

            COUNSEL:  VICTOR KELLY

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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.

________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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.

________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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 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 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