RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00221 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His entry-level separation with uncharacterized service be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His separation was inequitable and improper because it was based on a false statement and a conviction he had prior to entering active service for which he had obtained a waiver. His current characterization is preventing him from obtaining employment with the government. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 29 Jan 98, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 20 Feb 98, the applicant was evaluated by Behavioral Analysis Service (BAS) for stress. The evaluation noted the applicant was having difficulty adjusting, with feelings of increased stress and depression. The applicant reported a history of antisocial behavior as a teenager. The mental health provider indicated the applicant’s difficulties appeared to be related to adjustment rather than a mental health problem. It was further noted the applicant received a waiver for an arrest he had prior to entering military service. Mental Health recommended the applicant be returned to duty, and noted his ability to function in the military was significantly impaired. On 25 Mar 98, the applicant was again seen by BAS for an angry attitude towards BMT and feelings of wanting to “go off” on his military training instructor (MTI). The applicant felt his MTI was attempting to provoke him and threatened to assault him. He believes she is out to get him and would do anything to get rid of him. The applicant expressed he was very angry about the situation and that he would not physically assault anyone. The mental health provider recommended the applicant be returned to duty, but noted the applicant had an attitude problem and performance problem, not a mental disorder. He further noted if the applicant did not adjust his attitude he would more than likely get into trouble down the road. On 30 Mar 98, the applicant’s commander notified him that she was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory entry level performance or conduct. The specific reasons for the discharge action were the applicant’s failure to adapt to the military environment, failure to make satisfactory progress in a required training program, reluctance to make the effort necessary to meet Air Force standards of conduct and duty performance, and lack of self-discipline. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge action and, after consulting with legal counsel, waived his right to submit a statement in response to the action. On 2 Apr 98, the discharge authority directed the applicant be furnished an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. On 3 Apr 98, he was furnished an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service and credited with two months and five days of total active service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records indicates the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant has not provided any evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing to warrant changing his discharge, service characterization, or the narrative for separation. Airmen are given an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense (DoD) determined it would be unfair to the member or the service to characterize a member’s limited service when separation is initiated within the first 180 days of active service. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: When his commander approached him about the forged checks his first instinct was to lie, but he chose to tell the truth about the situation. He completed all assigned tasks in a timely manner. His physical training record will show he improved and excelled in physical training. Although he was selfish and irresponsible, he joined the Air Force for the values they could teach him. AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, states counseling and rehabilitation efforts are necessary for airmen new to the service. If unsatisfactory performance or conduct is the sole reason for discharge, the airman should not be separated until there have been efforts to help him meet Air Force standards. He was not provided an opportunity to overcome his deficiencies as required the governing instruction. A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s entry-level separation was consistent with the substantive requirements of the governing instructions and within the commander’s discretionary authority. The applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe his entry-level separation with uncharacterized service was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing directive. We note the applicant’s argument that he was not provided appropriate counseling or rehabilitation to give him an opportunity to meet standards; however, in view of the fact that his record contains documentation that indicates that he was provided assistance through the Behavioral Analysis Service (BAS), we are not persuaded that he was denied rights to which he was entitled or that his discharge was not appropriate to the circumstances. Therefore, absent evidence the applicant was not afforded rights to which he was entitled, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-00221 in Executive Session on 31 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 26 Mar 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated. Panel Chair