RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-02629
		INDEX CODE 106.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1986 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served proudly until his disabling condition (bipolar disorder (BD)) changed his disposition.  As for his arrest, he believes the recruiter made a mistake in filling out the form.

The applicant provides a personnel statement and two supporting statements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On his 30 Jul 84 Air Force Application for Enlistment, DD Form 1966, the applicant indicated he had been fined $60.00 for speeding in Mar 84 in Oklahoma City.  On his 30 Jul 84 Department of Defense (DOD) Personnel Security Questionnaire, the applicant indicated “No” in Item 14a as to whether he had ever been arrested, charged, cited or held by Federal, State or other law enforcement or juvenile authorities regardless of whether the citation was dropped or dismissed or if found not guilty.  However, in Item 14b, the applicant indicated “Yes,” as a result of being arrested, charged, etc., he was convicted, fined or forfeited bond, etc.  The applicant explained he was fined $60.00 for speeding in Mar 84.

However, he did not indicate he was arrested on 24 Feb 83 by the Oklahoma City Police Department and charged with receiving a stolen credit card.  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Nov 84 and was assigned to the 3rd Law Enforcement Squadron at Clark AFB, Philippines, as a law enforcement gate sentry.  

The applicant’s Airman Performance Reports (APRs) closing 29 Sep 85 and 5 Feb 86 both had overall ratings of 8.

On 30 Jul 85, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for writing five checks totaling $100.00 without sufficient funds to cover them, between 27 Jun and 5 Jul 85, and that he did not redeem three of the checks within the time frame ordered by the first sergeant.

He received an LOR on 1 Nov 85 for being apprehended and charged with allegedly raping a 24-year old female local national on the night of 28-29 Aug 85.  The Air Force Office of Special Investigation (AFOSI) investigated this matter and, during the investigation, the alleged victim dropped her charges.  However, the investigation did disclose the applicant violated a command order on 23 Aug 85 by allowing her to spend the entire night in his dorm room and continuing to have intercourse with her on 28 Aug 85 even after she asked or told him to stop.

On 19 Feb 86, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend discharge for fraudulent enlistment with an honorable or general characterization.  The commander charged the applicant for not listing his 24 Feb 83 arrest for receiving a stolen credit card on his 30 Jul 84 Application for Enlistment.  Further, the applicant similarly omitted this arrest on his 30 Jul 84 DOD Personnel Security Questionnaire.  The applicant acknowledged receipt and submitted a statement.  That same date, the commander recommended a general discharge for defective enlistment.  The commander added that much time had been spent trying to correct the applicant’s post-enlistment behavior without positive results. The applicant’s rebuttal contended his recruiter told him to fill out the forms the way he did, but the commander pointed out it was ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to list all pertinent information and certify its correctness.  Additionally, the commander reported the charges were not dropped as the applicant claimed, and Oklahoma currently had fugitive warrants out on him.  These false statements and his financial irresponsibility caused the commander to doubt the applicant’s integrity.  Therefore, probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were not recommended.  

Legal review on 13 Mar 86 found the case sufficient for discharge and recommended a general discharge without P&R.  The recommended administrative general discharge was approved on 18 Mar 86.

On 18 Apr 86, after 1 year, 5 months, and 17 days of active service, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman with a general characterization for defective enlistment-fraudulent entry.

On 4 Dec 95, the Board denied the applicant’s request to have his narrative reason for discharge changed from “Fraudulent Enlistment” to “Administrative Disclosure.”  A copy of the Record of Proceedings is provided at Exhibit B.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, D.C., provided an investigative report, which is attached at Exhibit C.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS HQ AFPC/DPPRSP believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discharge authority’s discretion. The applicant has not substantiated any errors or injustices and his appeal should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 Sep 04 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  

On 30 Sep 04, the AFBCMR Staff invited the applicant to submit post-service information (Exhibit F).  On 6 Oct 04, a complete copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment (Exhibit G).

The applicant submitted a personal statement, his resume, and the same two supporting statements provided with his application.

A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

The applicant contends he did not “authorize” an investigation into his background, which has no bearing of the type of individual he is today.  He notes the last charge is almost seven years old.  He claims he never had any problem with the law until he moved to Washington, and believes this was because of racism.

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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 the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant provides no evidence establishing his discharge was erroneous or unwarranted, or that his misconduct was beyond his control due to medical problems.  Further, his misconduct continued after his separation until 1998.  Despite being invited to submit verification of his post-service activities as a gainfully employed, law-abiding citizen, he provided only his resume and two supporting statements.  The applicant has not demonstrated he was denied due process or was the victim of discrimination as he alleges.  In view of the above and absent convincing evidence to the contrary, we are not persuaded the applicant’s general discharge should be upgraded to honorable on the basis of error, injustice, or clemency.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 25 January 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02629 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Sep 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Sep 04.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Oct 04.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, undated, received 12 Oct 04,
				w/atchs.
   Exhibit I.  Letter Applicant, dated 17 Oct 04.