RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00883
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for her separation, Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She answered NO to question 21 of the Questionnaire for National Security Positions, regarding whether or not she had consulted with a mental health professional, because the second part of the question states, “Unless the consultation involved only marital, family, or grief counseling, not related to violence by you.”  She had consulted the physician only after having been divorced.  She was raised in a Catholic family and divorce does not exist within the Catholic Church.  She decided to seek professional advice outside of the Church for personal counseling.  Since this is not related to any violence by herself, she understood that she should answer NO.

In support of her request applicant provided a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  Her complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 20 Sep 96.  She was voluntarily ordered to active duty on 7 Jan 97.  On 28 Jan 97, she was separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, for fraudulent entry into military service, with an uncharacterized entry-level separation.  Facts surrounding her fraudulent entry are not available.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPZ reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial.  DPZ states that in addition to being untimely, her application may be dismissed under the equitable doctrines of laches.  She waited 5 years to file and took no action on her claim prior to that.  Her unreasonable delay has caused prejudice to the Air Force.  DPZ does not still maintain any discharge documentation on members after more than 5 years.  She does not indicate who may have been the Air Force representative that provided this information to her at the time of her enlistment.  Thereby making it unconscionably burdensome to remedy her situation.  Her unreasonable delay dating back 5 years has greatly complicated the Air Force’s ability to determine the merits of her position.  The DPZ evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Jun 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

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 probable error or injustice.  Evidence has not been provided in support of her appeal which would lead us to believe that a change to her narrative reason for separation is warranted.  The applicant’s failure to timely file has added to the difficulty in obtaining all relevant records, the burden of which must be placed upon the applicant, not the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that she has not been the victim of 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 issue 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 probable 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 02-00883 in Executive Session on 7 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRZ/DPZ, dated 20 May 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jun 02.