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

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00944-2
				INDEX CODE:  110.02

							COUNSEL:  

								HEARING DESIRED: Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be changed to show his reinstatement into the Connecticut Air National Guard (CTANG) and that an Officer Performance Report be changed to more accurately reflect his accomplishments.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On 31 March 2005, the Board considered and denied his request but because of ongoing litigation (Doe v. Rumsfeld) surrounding the Anthrax Vaccination Program (AVIP) the Board provided a caveat that should the plaintiffs in the aforementioned case prevail against the Secretary of Defense, the Board would reconsider the applicant’s request.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit H.

On 8 September 2006, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration (Exhibit I), as the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit had provided a decision in the aforementioned case (Exhibit J).  On 13 September 2006, the Board asked HQ USAF/JAA for an advisory on the Court of Appeals judgment.  JAA provided an advisory on 19 September 2006 that recommended denial of the applicant’s reconsideration (Exhibit K).  Applicant’s counsel provided an undated response to the JAA advisory that the AFBCMR received on 26 October 2006 (Exhibit (L).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The authority to reinstate an ANG member without the consent of the Govenor lies outside the purview of this Board and is therefore moot.  We originally agreed that should the plaintiffs in Doe v. Rumsfeld prevail we would reconsider the applicant’s request to change his OPR for the period 9 July 1998 to 14 December 1998 to more fully represent his accomplishments.  After careful and deliberate review of the HQ USAF/JAA advisory dated 19 September 2006, we conclude that the plaintiffs in Doe v. Rumsfeld, did not in fact prevail against the Secretary of Defense.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

2.  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 probable material error or injustice; 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 this application in Executive Session on 20 February 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 31 Mar 05,
			 with exhibits A through G.
    Exhibit I.  Applicant, Email, dated 7 Sep 05.
    Exhibit J.  US Court of Appeals, Judgment, dated 9 Feb 06.
    Exhibit K.  HQ USAF/JAA, Memorandum, dated 19 Sep 06.
    Exhibit L.  Counsel for Applicant, Email, dated 27 Oct 06.