RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03123
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.02


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation and  separation  code  of  JDA  be
changed, and that her Reenlistment Eligibility  (RE)  Code  of  2C  be
changed to RE-3K so that she can reenlist.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Upon enlisting in the Air Force, her recruiter asked if she  had  ever
attempted suicide.  She wasn’t entirely truthful  when  answering  her
question, because  although  she  had  never  attempted  suicide,  she
started to when she was 15 or 16 years old, but didn’t follow through.

Applicant’s complete statement and a  supporting  statement  from  her
father are at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 October 1995, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for  a
period of four years.

The Report of Medical History, SF Form 93, completed by the  applicant
on 2 June 1995, reflects  that  she  answered  in  the  negative  with
respect to whether she had ever attempted suicide.  She also indicated
she had received family counseling at age 17  regarding  her  sister’s
depression, not her own.

On 3 November 1995, the squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant for defective enlistment.   The
reason for the proposed action was that the applicant  had  failed  to
indicate on her SF 93 (Report of  Medical  History)  that  she  had  a
history of attempted  suicide.   Had  the  Air  Force  known  of  this
condition at the time of her enlistment, it could  have  rendered  her
ineligible to enlist.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge
notification and that military legal counsel  was  made  available  to
her.  She waived  her  option  to  consult  counsel  and  submitted  a
statement for consideration.  On 3 November 1995, the Assistant  Staff
Judge Advocate found the  case  file  legally  sufficient  to  support
separation.  On 6 November 1995, the discharge authority directed that
the applicant be discharged with an entry level separation.

On 9 November 1995, applicant received an uncharacterized entry  level
separation by reason of “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service,”  and
was  issued  an  RE  Code  of  2C  (entry  level  separation   without
characterization of service).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed this application and opined  that
no change in  the  records  is  warranted  and  recommended  that  the
application be denied.  He stated, in part, that the applicant readily
admits concealing important medical  information  from  her  recruiter
which confirms the fraudulent nature of her entry into the Air  Force.
Only when she developed problems  while  in  basic  training  did  she
reveal the true nature of her background  and  psychological  history.
Administrative separation was appropriate under  these  circumstances,
and the applicant provides nothing in  her  current  application  that
would warrant consideration of granting her request to be  allowed  to
return to the military.  (Exhibit C)

The Separations Branch,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial, stating the  applicant  did  not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify  any  errors  in  the  discharge  processing  nor
provide facts, which support a change in  the  separation  reason  and
reenlistment code she received.  (Exhibit D)

The Special Programs and BCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES,  stated  that  the
assigned RE Code of 2C  is  correct.   The  type  of  discharge  drove
assignment of the RE Code.  (Exhibit E)

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
15 February 1999 for review and comment within 30 days.   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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.    After   careful
consideration of the circumstances  of  this  case  and  the  evidence
provided by the applicant, we are not  persuaded  that  the  discharge
action was in error or unjust.  The evidence of  record  supports  the
stated  reason  for  applicant’s   administrative   discharge;   i.e.,
applicant concealed a prior  service  condition  from  her  recruiter,
which if known at the time, may have resulted  in  her  rejection  for
enlistment.  Therefore, in our opinion, responsible officials  applied
appropriate standards in effecting applicant’s involuntary separation,
and we did not find persuasive  evidence  that  pertinent  regulations
were violated or that applicant was not afforded all rights  to  which
entitled at the time of her discharge.  In  addition,  applicant’s  RE
Code of 2C accurately reflects her involuntary entry level  separation
without characterization of service.   Based  on  the  foregoing,  and
having no evidence of an  error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  the
discharge action, we  conclude  that  no  basis  exists  to  recommend
favorable action on the applicant’s requests.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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  in
Executive Session on 13 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
      Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 98, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Dec 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Jan 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 27 Jan 99.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Feb 99.



                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair