RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-01396

XXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Her narrative reason for separation of “Defective Enlistments- Fraudulent Entry” be corrected.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

Her initial background check was free of traffic tickets, fines, loans and etc.  A subsequent background check for a security clearance reflected an old traffic ticket and a credit card her mother obtained in her name.  She took care of it yet was still discharged in retaliation for making a complaint on how she was treated.  She received an Article 15, lost a stripe and still received an honorable discharge.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force airman (E-2).

On 31 Dec 85, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraphs 5-15 and 5-46.  The reasons for this action were failing to disclose citation or arrest by law enforcement authorities, failing to fully disclose employment and educational institution history and minor disciplinary infractions.  The applicant was informed the action would result in her separation with an honorable discharge. 

On 14 Jan 86, the staff judge advocate found the discharge action legally sufficient and recommended the applicant receive an honorable discharge.

On 15 Jan 86, the discharge authority directed the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge without the opportunity to participate in a program of probation and rehabilitation.

On 16 Jan 86, the applicant received an honorable discharge.  Her narrative reason for separation is “Defective Enlistments- Fraudulent Entry.”  She was credited with seven months and seven days of active service.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSR recommends denying the application.  Based on review of the master of personnel records and the applicant’s request, there is no error or injustice with the discharge processing.   The applicant failed to disclose an arrest record, which constituted fraudulent entry.  The narrative reason for separation was justified by the supporting documents that were provided by the applicant’s commander to the Base Discharge Authority.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 14 Mar 22 and 20 Jul 22 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSR and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2021-01396 in Executive Session on 17 May 22.

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 20.
Exhibit B:	Relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SSR, dated 25 Aug 21.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 14 Mar 22 and
		 20 Jul 22..

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.