RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00043
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His administrative discharge be overturned.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records are in error or unjust based on the following: unauthorized DSN phone calls for personal use; possession of a forged DD Form 1853 (Authentication of Reserve Status for Travel Eligibility); misrepresentation of unit of assignment; misrepresentation of rank/grade, and disrespect to a senior non-commissioned officer.

Through his own investigation, since Mar 93, he determined that the circumstances surrounding his discharge from the Air Force were the result of identity theft.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he submitted a personal statement, with attachments (additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions), along with letters of character reference and recommendations from former training instructors, associates, and co-workers.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the period of service under review, the applicant served honorably in the US Marine Corps (Reserve and Active components) from 27 Feb 73 until 26 Feb 79.  He was in civilian status from 27 Feb 79 to 10 Aug 79.  He reenlisted back in the USMCR on 11 Aug 79 until his discharge on 10 Aug 80.  He was again in civilian status from 11 Aug 80 until 12 Sep 80.

On 13 Sep 80, he enlisted in the Air National Guard for a period of 3 years in the grade of airman first class (E-3/A1C).  On 25 Oct 82, he was promoted to the grade of sergeant.  He was discharged 15 May 83 and remained in civilian until 9 Sep 84.  on 10 Sep 84, he enlisted in the ANG in the grade of sergeant with an effective date and date of rank of 10 Sep 84.  He had continuous service in the Air Reserve Component (Reserve and Air National Guard) until 18 Jan 89.  

On 19 Jan 89, he enlisted in the Army National Guard in the grade of specialist (E-4/SPC)until his discharge on 25 Apr 90.  He reenlisted in the ANG on 26 Apr 90 until his discharge on 9 May 92. 

On 10 Aug 92, he reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve for a period of 5 years in the grade of sergeant.

On 2 Feb 95, the squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action against the applicant for a pattern of misconduct, for discreditable involvement with military authorities.  The specific reasons for the proposed action were:

On or about 23 Aug 92, applicant made an unauthorized and fraudulent use of a DSN phone for an offnet long distance call that was personal (to his mother).  On 5 Oct 92, he admitted making the phone call as a part of Fraud, Waste and Abuse complaint he made because the DSN operator was being rude to him.

On or about 2 Feb 93, he used a forged DD Form 1853 while representing his unit and rank; wearing the uniform of a TSgt to obtain Space A travel.

On 5 Feb 95, the wing Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally sufficient to justify an administrative discharge for misconduct and recommended that the applicant be separated with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  

By letter, dated 3 Mar 95, HQ AFRES/DPAA forwarded the applicant the Notification of Initiation of Separation Action under AFI 36-3209 through certified mail.  On 11 May 95, the major command Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally sufficient for discharge and recommended a general discharge.  On 25 May 95, the discharge authority approved a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

On 14 Jun 95, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions), and was issued a reenlistment eligibility status of “Ineligible.”

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFRC/JAJ recommends that no relief be granted.  They state that the applicant alleges his case involves “identity theft,” but find no relevance to the issue.  According to documents provided by the applicant, phone service was fraudulently established in his name.  He provided a letter from GTE releasing him from all financial responsibility from any debts associated with the unauthorized telephone charges.  A police report states that the applicant suspects his brother of perpetuating this fraud from 20 Aug 96 to 25 Dec 96.  Applicant also states that someone used his social security number to commit crimes.  However, they found that none of the information relates to the reasons that he was discharged.  All of the acts committed by the applicant occurred during the 92-93 timeframe.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFRC/DPM recommended no relief be granted and agreed with the HQ AFRC/JAJ evaluation.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant submitted a response to the evaluation, with attachments.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The applicant asserts that he was the victim of “identity theft,” however, we do not find that the evidence provided by the applicant substantiates a correlation between the events which subsequently led to his administrative discharge and the suspected criminal activity of some members of his family which occurred after his discharge.  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.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-00043 in Executive Session on 22 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 01, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFRC/JAJ, dated 27 Mar 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 30 Apr 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated.