RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-03720
								INDEX CODE:  100.00
								COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge be upgraded to honorable.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her discharge should be upgraded since she told her recruiter she had previously used Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) prior to entering the Air Force, and he told her not to disclose the information.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of the discharge notification letter, her Enlisted Performance Report closing 16 April 2002, and documentation verifying her entitlement to the Air Force Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) for her support of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 August 2000, for a period of 4 years.

On 3 October 2002, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate administrative discharge for fraudulent entry.  Specifically, that on 20 April 2000, she knowingly made false representations that she had never experimented with, used, or possessed any illegal drug or narcotic as declared on her AF Form 2030, USAF Drug and Alcohol Abuse Certificate.  After consulting with legal counsel and being advised of her rights, she waived her right to submit statements in her behalf.  The proposed action was found legally sufficient and on 10 October 2002, the discharge authority approved the discharge.

On 10 October 2002, she was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, Drug Abuse) and issued a Reentry Code of 2B.  She completed 2 years, 1 month, and 15 days of active service.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied her request to upgrade her discharge (Exhibit B).

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request and states, in part, the document in the applicant’s records supports the basis for her discharge.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Further, the applicant has not submitted any evidence or identified any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.  Although she states her recruiter advised her not to disclose her prior-service drug use, it remains the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate and truthful information on her pre-enlistment documents.

The AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA also recommends denial and states, in part; the record indicates the applicant knowingly and falsely certified that she had not used illegal drugs, which allowed her to gain entry into the Air Force.  She now contends, six years later, the recruiter told her not to disclose her prior drug use.  Although she had ample opportunity to, and immediately after, her discharge to make and provide evidence to support this allegation, she did not do so.  Therefore, little credibility should be given to her assertion.

The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 January 2009 for review and comments, within 30 days.  However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded the characterization of her discharge should be upgraded.  Although the applicant contends she told the recruiter of her prior drug use, i.e., LSD, and he advised her to withhold the information, she has failed to provide a statement from the recruiter to substantiate this contention.  Moreover, the decision of the AFDRB appears to be based on the evidence of record and has not been rebutted by the applicant.  Absent persuasive evidence the applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate instructions were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.  

________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2008-03720 in Executive Session on 14 May 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Oct 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 3 Nov 08.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 11 Dec 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 09.