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

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00651

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 (30 Sep 06), Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 7a - Place of Entry into Active Duty (PLEAD), be corrected to reflect “Lackland AFB, Texas” versus “US Air Force Academy.”

RESUME OF CASE:

On 16 Jul 15, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s original request that his, DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge Duty, Block 7a - Place of Entry into Active Duty (PLEAD), be corrected to reflect “Lackland AFB, Texas”.  In the original request the applicant contended he entered the Air Force in 1982, after graduating from the USAF Academy.  His home of record at the time was Coldwater, Michigan.  He retook the oath of office and reentered the Air Force in 1986, at Lackland AFB, Texas.  His second DD Form 214 (30 Sep 06), incorrectly states his PLEAD as USAF Academy.  The Board concluded there was insufficient relevant evidence presented that demonstrated the existence of an error or injustice.  They agreed with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPANF and adopted its rationale as the basis for their conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  In this respect, they noted that at the time he entered active duty in Jun 86, the applicant was a member of the AF Reserves.  Per AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, a Reserve member’s Place of Entry into Active Duty (PLEAD) is the address listed on their Extended Active Duty (EAD) special order.  The applicant’s address listed on his 17 Mar 86 EAD orders was Ypsilanti, MI.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, they found no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F.  

On 1 May 16, the AFBCMR received a request from the applicant for reconsideration of his original request.  In this request, he contends that his PLEAD, Block 7a, of his DD Form 214 (30 Sep 06) should be corrected to reflect Lackland AFB, TX.  He states he was in-processed, received the oath of office, and received two weeks of introduction to USAF Training at Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX.  In support of his contention, he provided the same documents as in his original request (Exhibit G).  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial of the applicant’s request that his 
PLEAD (block 7a) on his DD Form 214, be corrected to reflect “Lackland AFB TX” vice the “US Air Force Academy” as currently listed.  AFR 35-6, dated 12 Jun 85, Separation Documents, Table 4, rule 7, directs the PLEAD be the place “Place of entry into the period of active duty that is ending.  For Regular Air Force airmen this is the place of enlistment shown on the latest DD Form 4.  For all others, the place from which ordered to active duty”.  In review of the applicant’s 12 Mar 86 EAD orders, he initiated travel for active duty from Ypsilanti, MI (he was a member of the AF Reserve at the time of the matter in question).  Therefore, they recommend the applicant’s request to change his DD Form 214 (30 Sep 06) PLEAD to Lackland AFB, TX, be denied.  However, his DD Form 214 (30 Sep 06), should be corrected to reflect Ypsilanti, MI, versus the US Air Force Academy.  Upon final Board decision, administrative correction of the applicant’s DD Form 214 (30 Sep 86) will be completed by AFPC/DP2STM. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit H.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that Ypsilanti, MI, was his home of record (HOR), not his PLEAD.  He entered the service at Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX on 12 Jun 86.  In support of his response, the applicant provided copies of his DD Form 214 and EAD.  He requests the Board review all documents in his case before rendering a decision.

A complete copy of the Applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit J.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, to include his rebuttal; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note the OPR’s comments that his DD Form 214 (30 Sep 06), should be corrected to reflect Ypsilanti, MI, versus the US Air Force Academy, and upon final Board decision, administrative correction of the applicant’s DD Form 214 (30 Sep 86) will be completed.  In view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting relief beyond that rendered administratively.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-00651 in Executive Session on 21 Mar 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00651 was considered:

	Exhibit F.  Original Case File, dated 5 Sep 15.
	Exhibit G.  RECON DD Form 149, dated 1 May 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit H.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 23 Dec 16.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Dec 16.
	Exhibit J.  Email, Applicant, dated 5 Mar 17.  

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.