RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00911
            INDEX CODE:  100

            COUNSEL:  BRIAN BAKER

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant makes no contentions on his  application;  however,  counsel
for the applicant indicated that assigning the applicant an RE code of
2C was in error and unjust for the reason that his enlistment was  not
fraudulent in nature because at the  time  the  applicant  signed  his
enlistment contract, he did not know that his girlfriend was  pregnant
and thus he did not knowingly and intentionally fail to disclose  this
information to the Air Force.  When the applicant was informed of  the
pregnancy two days before  he was sworn in, he acted in  a  reasonable
and non-fraudulent manner by informing his recruiter of the  pregnancy
and then by relying on the advice of the recruiter not to mention  the
pregnancy and “everything would be alright.”

In support of his appeal, applicant provided a  six-page  declaration,
counsel for the applicant  provided  an  eight-page  declaration,  and
applicant’s father provided a three-page declaration.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Jul 98, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 6 Aug 98, the applicant was  evaluated  by  the  Chief,  Behavorial
Analysis Service, Division of Mental  Health,  after  referral  for  a
psychological evaluation in response to his report  of  a  history  of
depression as well as  other  varied  physical  ailments.   The  Chief
indicated the applicant was being returned to  duty  but  disqualified
for Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) and category  I  weapons.   He
did not have a mental disorder but was clearly not an ideal  candidate
for military service.  The Chief stated that he expected the applicant
may eventually be discharged for medical fraud.  The Chief also stated
that if the applicant continued in training and did not demonstrate  a
marked improvement, he requested the applicant be referred back to him
for a second evaluation.

On 19 Aug 98, the Superintendent,  Discharge  Processing,  interviewed
the  applicant  as  a  possible  fraudulent  entry   for   Undisclosed
Dependency Information.  His girlfriend was two months pregnancy  with
his child and in accordance with AETCI 36-2002, Chapter 4, Table  4.2,
a waiver was required in order for applicant  to  remain  in  the  Air
Force.

In an undated memorandum, the request for a waiver was disapproved  by
the commander.

On 17 Sep 98, applicant was notified by his  commander  that  she  was
recommending that he be discharged from the Air Force  for  fraudulent
entry.  The reason for the commander’s  action  was  that  applicant’s
girlfriend was  two  months  pregnant  with  applicant’s  child.   The
commander indicated that had the Air Force known of this  history,  it
could have rendered the applicant ineligible to enlist.

On 17 Sep 98, applicant waived his option to  consult  military  legal
counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his behalf.

On 22 Sep 98, the applicant was separated under the provisions of  AFI
36-3208 (Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service) with an  entry  level
separation  and  uncharacterized  service,  with  an  RE  code  of  2C
(Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or  entry  level
separation without characterization of service) and a separation  code
of JDA (Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service).  He spent  one  month
in basic training and received no active duty creditable service since
his separation was for fraudulent entry.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel  Management  Specialist,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
this application and indicated  that  airmen  are  given  entry  level
separation/uncharacterized service  characterization  when  separation
action is initiated against them in the first 180 days  of  continuous
active service.  DPPRS believes the discharge was consistent with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation at
the time of applicant’s discharge  from  active  duty.   Further,  the
discharge action was within the discretion of the discharge  authority
and the applicant was provided full administrative due  process.   The
records  indicate  the  applicant’s  military  service  was   properly
reviewed and appropriate action was taken.  He neither  submitted  any
new evidence, identified any errors in the discharge  processing,  nor
provided facts that support changing the reason  for  his  separation.
Accordingly, DPPRS recommends applicant’s records remain unchanged and
his request be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Special Programs & BCMR Manager, AFPC/DPPAES, also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that a review of the applicant’s  case  file
was conducted and the RE code is correct since the type  of  discharge
drove assignment of the RE code.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to  applicant  on
23 Aug 99 for review and response.  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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   After  thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of record, we are persuaded that applicant’s RE
code should be changed.  It appears that at  the  time  the  applicant
signed his enlistment contract, he was unaware that his girlfriend was
pregnant and was informed of her pregnancy  two  days  before  he  was
sworn into the Air Force.  While we cannot confirm whether applicant’s
recruiter did, in fact,  advise  the  applicant  not  to  mention  the
pregnancy,  we  note  that  applicant’s  father,  in  his  declaration
statement, indicated that, while he did  not  talk  to  the  recruiter
himself, his son gave him the impression that the  recruiter’s  advice
was to not mention the pregnancy until after he  arrived  at  Lackland
AFB for training.  In addition,  applicant’s  father  stated  that  he
spoke with the commanding officer and he was assured that his son  was
not getting a bad type of discharge which meant he would  most  likely
be allowed to reenlist in the Air Force after he returned home.  Based
on applicant’s desire to serve in the military, and in order to offset
any possibility of an injustice, we believe he should be given  an  RE
code of “3K.”  In addition, we believe that, in view of  the  totality
of the circumstances  surrounding  his  separation,  as  a  matter  of
equity, a correction of his records to change the narrative reason for
separation to “Secretarial Authority” and his separation code to “KFF”
would be appropriate.  The above recommended corrections will  provide
the applicant the opportunity to apply for a waiver to enlist  in  the
Armed Forces.  Whether or not he is  successful  will  depend  on  the
needs of the service and our recommendation in no way guarantees  that
he will be allowed to return to the Air Force or  any  branch  of  the
service.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 22 Sep 98, he  was
separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Secretarial  Authority)
and furnished an SPD code of KFF and an RE code of 3K.

________________________________________________________________


The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 4 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
              Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member
              Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Jul 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 28 Jul 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Aug 99.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair






INDEX CODE:  100

AFBCMR 99-00911




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat  116),  it  is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air
Force relating to                  , be  corrected  to  show  that  on
22 September 1998, he was separated under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
3208  (Secretarial  Authority)  and  furnished  a  separation  program
designator (SPD) code of KFF and a reenlistment eligibility (RE)  code
of 3K.







                                                            JOE     G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                           Air   Force
Review Boards Agency