SECOND ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02099

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force, be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6), and allowed to cross train into the Paralegal Air Force Specialty she was approved for prior to her discharge.

She be paid all back pay and allowances from the time of her involuntary separation.

If she is reinstated to active duty, she be given a join spouse assignment.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 1 Apr 03, the AFBCMR considered a similar appeal from the applicant.  The Board changed the applicant’s RE code to “3K” to allow her to apply for reenlistment in the Air Force (See Record of Proceedings at Exhibit M).

On 2 Jul 03, the Board reconsidered and again denied the applicant’s appeal (See Addendum Record of Proceedings at Exhibit O).

In a letter dated 17 Jan 04, the applicant again requests reconsideration of her case.  She makes the following assertions:

	  A.  She was involuntarily extended on active duty beyond her expiration of term of service (ETS) in violation of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 2.8, Extension of Enlistment When Discharge for Cause is Pending.

	  B.  Her commander substituted administrative discharge for disciplinary action in violation of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.1.2.

	  C.  Her commander did not consider her for reenlistment and document it on AF Form 418, thereby denying her of an opportunity to appeal his decision in violation of AFI 26-2606.

	  D.  She still believes she was denied reenlistment because of a sexual assault she suffered.  She provides a copy of a police report that documents the assault.  She also submits a letter she indicates was written to her by her commander stating that the circumstances surrounding her assault would have dramatically decreased the moral [sic] of the squadron.

The applicant further discusses her views of her case and why, if reinstated to active duty, she should be cross-trained into the paralegal career field.  She opines that the things that happened to her would not have happened if the commander had followed proper procedures.  She states that the commander felt some remorse after her discharge or he would not have drafted the letter to her.  The applicant also references and discusses a previous BCMR case similar to hers where the applicant was granted relief.

Applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit P.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After reviewing the most recent evidence provided by the applicant in support of her appeal, the Board again finds it insufficient to substantiate she has been the victim of an error or injustice warranting the relief sought.  The applicant indicates her commander violated AFI 36-3208, paragraph 2.8 by involuntarily extending her enlistment when a discharge for cause was pending.  However, we note the applicant was extended due to a pending investigation, which could have resulted in disciplinary action.  There is no evidence in the record that an administrative discharge was initiated against her.  Rather, she was discharged because she was denied reenlistment.  The issues raised by the applicant regarding the procedures followed by the commander in denying her reenlistment have been previously addressed and we have nothing further to add.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence the applicant submits in support of her contention that she was denied reenlistment because she had been the victim of a sexual assault, we find insufficient evidence to establish a nexus between these two events.  We reviewed the letter, dated 10 Mar 00, the applicant contends was authored by her previous commander, but given our reservations regarding its authenticity do not believe it would be appropriate to use as the basis to grant or deny the requested relief.  Finally, after reviewing BCMR Case number 00-01271, referenced by the applicant as having similarities to her case with relief granted by the Board, we do not find anything in the rationale and actions of the Board in that case which cause us to question the appropriateness of our decision in this case.  Therefore, we again, find no basis to grant the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

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 BC-2002-02099 in Executive Session on 23 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit O.  Addendum Record of Proceedings, dated 
                9 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit P.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit Q.  ROP, BC-2000-01271, undated.

								Chair