RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01901 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His narrative reason of “fraudulent entry into military service” 
be changed to “erroneous”. 

 

 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He believes the narrative reason is erroneous because his 
recruiter told him to withhold his past medical history from the 
Air Force. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a written 
statement, copy of his DD Form 214 Certificate of Discharge from 
Active Duty, an AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for 
Separation and other supporting documentation. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 08 February 
2011. On 21 April 2011, the applicant was notified of his 
commander’s intent to discharge him from the Air Force for 
defective enlistment: fraudulent entry into military service. 
Specifically, the applicant did not meet the medical requirements 
to enlist. 

 

On 21 April 2011, the applicant acknowledged his commander’s 
intent to discharge him. He also acknowledged his right to 
consult counsel and submit statements on his behalf: he accepted 
an appointment with the Area Defense Counsel and submitted 
statements for consideration. On 2 May 2011 the commander 
directed the applicant be separated with an entry level 
separation. His service was “uncharacterized” and his narrative 
reason for separation was listed as “fraudulent entry into 
military service.” 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AETC/SGPS recommends denial. SGPS states the applicant failed to 
disclose major medical issues at the time of his accession 
examination. Had they been disclosed he would have been found 
disqualified for military service. The separation was in 
accordance with established policy and administrative procedures. 
Since the applicant did not meet and currently does not meet 
medical criteria for military duty, they do not support a change 
to his separation code. 

 

The complete AETC/SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the discharge to 
include the narrative reason for separation was consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of discharge authority. 

The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors 
or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. He 
provided no facts warranting a change in his narrative reason for 
separation. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

__________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 November 2011 for review and comment within 30 
days. As of this date, this office has received no response. 

 

 

 

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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion. Therefore, we 
find no basis to favorably consider this application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


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 
BC-2011-01901 in Executive Session on 12 January 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Vice Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 May 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 5 August 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 13 October 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 November 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair