RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01836
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for discharge be changed to show that he did complete a commissioning program; that he be commissioned as originally ordered by Special Order AH----, dated 5 Jan 81; that he be promoted commensurate with his advanced degrees and military experience to the grade of major (0-4) with credit for at least three (3) years of commissioned service.  At a minimum he requests his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code and his separation program designator (SPD) code be changed to reflect codes that indicate an honorable discharge without prejudice against reenlistment.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had completed all required training at Officer Training School (OTS) except participate in the graduation parade.  He was recommended for elimination from OTS based on “anomalies” in the results of his background investigation, and he feels his elimination and subsequent recommendation by the school commandant that he not be reconsidered for OTS at a later date was based more on expediency than on his official record and accompanying explanations.

In support of his application, the applicant has provided a letter of recommendation from his current wing commander, a letter of explanation to his commander and a substantial part of his personnel record.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, currently a member of the --- Air National Guard (-- ANG), was selected on 28 July 1980 to attend Air Force OTS.  He began OTS on 3 October 1980 and completed the course as evidenced by Special Order (SO) AH----, which appointed the applicant a Reserve of the Air Force 2nd lieutenant, effective  13 January 1981.  However, he was recommended for elimination on 13 January 1981 and that recommendation was approved on         23 January 1981.  His elimination was based on “Unfavorable Results of Security Investigation.”  He received an RE code of 4L, which means, “Separated Commissioning Program.”  The narrative reason for separation was “Failed to Complete Commissioning Program” and an SPD code of “KHD”, which means “Failure to Complete Commissioning Program.”  
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOATS/JA reviewed this application and recommended denial.  JA states that the applicant was discharged from OTS without prejudice, that he admitted to 2 Article 15’s while enlisted in the US Army, that he admitted to drug use and for being punished for it.  JA states that the applicant failed to reveal vital information that would have affected his qualification for OTS when he applied.  The Air Force security investigation uncovered some “bounced” checks and applicant admits to some inadequacy in balancing his checkbook.  JA recommends that no changes be made to the applicant’s record.  The commander and the commandant made the determination that the applicant failed to disclose pertinent information when applying to OTS and disenrollment was appropriate.

AFOATS/JA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  They reiterate, in large part, the comments from the JA evaluation.  DPPRS states that the applicant provided neither new information nor any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during his separation.  DPPRS notes that the discharge was within the discretionary power of the discharge authority of the day.

DPPRS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE reviewed the applicant’s request to change his RE code and found that the applicant was eliminated from OTS due to fraudulent enlistment.  He failed to report a history of financial mismanagement, drug involvement, and two Article 15s, which was discovered by an AF background investigation.  DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s request and states that the applicant received the proper RE code upon his elimination from OTS.

DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that while his intent was not to have the Board commission, promote, and give him constructive credit, but that this was the desired outcome of himself and his current commander should the Board see fit to correct his record.  He would like to address several “errors” in the official responses (OPR Evaluations), submitted in response to his application to the Board.

Regarding the pre-service use of marijuana, the applicant states that he never bought, sold or distributed marijuana but confessed to the Army Security Agency (ASA) that he only experimented with it.  He notes that he did not volunteer the experimentation with marijuana prior to the findings of the Air Force security investigation because he was not required to do so unless he had a record of arrest, had sold or distributed it.  

Regarding the “bounced” checks, the applicant states that he did not reveal them in his application to Officer Training School (OTS) because he did not know that that part of his financial history was an issue.  He notes that it had not been an issue for a long time.  He infers that he did not suffer from an inadequacy in balancing his check book but, as a university student, he was usually short of money and would write a check and either forget to update his check register or forget the amount of the check and enter an incorrect amount, thereby causing him to bounce checks.  He states that no one ever suffered a finiancial loss as a result of his action except himself, as he immediately paid any penalties or made up the shortfall.

Regarding the two Article 15’s he received while in the United States Army (USA), he states that while he knew of one of the Article 15’s in his military record, he was not aware of the second.  He argues that he did, in fact, reveal circumstances of a civilian incident (court records were sealed) that he feels was a far more serious detriment to his application that should indicate that he had no intent to defraud.  He contends that he received the second Article 15 and was advised by Army counsel to appeal the Article 15 and that it would probably be dropped anyway as the applicant was leaving the Army.  After several weeks of leave, the applicant returned to his unit and began outprocessing.  He states that since nothing further was said about the Article 15 and the suggested appeal he assumed it had been dropped or rescinded.

The applicant believes that his commander at OTS took the path of least resistance, in eliminating him from OTS, in spite of recommendations to the contrary.  Additionally, he faults the OPR evaluations as results of casual reading and inattention to detail that has led to wrong assumptions incorrect statements by the OPR evaluations.

His complete rebuttal 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 of command expediency and his labeling of previously undisclosed unfavorable information, uncovered by a security clearance investigation, as anomalies, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  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.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-01836 in Executive Session on 1 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 May 02, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFOATS/JA, dated 28 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 19 May 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 June 03.

                                   Panel Chair