RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00419
		INDEX CODE 110.03
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated into the Air Force Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was deprived of his due process rights to respond to the allegations against him and, therefore, had no right to counsel by lack of notice.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a letter from his defense counsel and letters of recommendation from his former co‑workers and squadron career advisor.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFRC/JAJ recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge for fraudulent entry by certified mail to the same address he lists on his application to the AFBCMR.  Although required by law to be truthful, he failed to disclose his arrest on 9 December 1990 for DUI, his arrest on 13 April 1991 for aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and eluding, and that he had his driver’s license suspended from 15 January 1991 to 11 August 1992. The certified mail was signed and received by a person by the name of L--- P---.  The applicant did not respond to the discharge notification within 15 days as required, and his discharge was processed.  While the applicant’s assigned military counsel indicates that he was never provided a copy of the discharge notification, if he was concerned regarding the status of the discharge action, he could have asked for information as he has requested of other cases in the past.  The notification was sent to the applicant’s residence and although signed for by someone else, there is an extremely high likelihood that he did have notice of the discharge action as it can be presumed in good faith that the individual either gave the notification to him or left it out for him.  Given the fact that he has already demonstrated his propensity to lie, he has no credibility.  The processing of his discharge complied with all aspects of the governing Air Force Instruction.  Moreover, he knew he was being processed for discharge and the final action was not completed for almost seven months.  Assuming, arguendo, that he never received notification, either he or his counsel could have made an inquiry into the status of the discharge action during that period.

The AFRC/JAJ evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFRC/DPM recommends the application be denied, stating, in part, that they concur with AFRC/JAJ’s recommendation; however, if relief is granted, they recommend the applicant’s administrative discharge be revoked and he be reinstated into the Reserves.

The AFRC/DPM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 June 2002 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The offices of primary responsibility have adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinions and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 Docket Number 02-00419 in Executive Session on 15 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/JAJ, dated 27 Mar 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 30 Apr 02.	
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 02.