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:  

		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:

		Panel Chair
		Member
		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.