RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01075

                             INDEX CODE: 110.00


                             COUNSEL: NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED: No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for his separation, fraudulent enlistment, be  removed  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he filled out his paperwork with his recruiter, the recruiter told  him
to check “no” in every box.  Then he was instructed  to  fax  the  paperwork
back to  the  recruiter.   While  he  was  in  career  counseling  at  basic
training, he was asked if he ever used drugs and answered yes.  He was  then
discharged for fraudulent entry.  He does not believe that he should  be  at
fault for doing what his recruiter told him to do.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 January 1999 in  the  grade
of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 29 January 1999, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against him for  fraudulent  entry  into  the  Air
Force.  He had executed an  AF  Form  2030,  USAF  Drug  and  Alcohol  Abuse
Certificate, on 23 October 1998 and indicated that  he  had  never  used  or
experimented with marijuana or any dangerous drug or narcotic.  Then  on  21
January 1999, applicant executed  an  AF  Form  174,  Record  of  Individual
Counseling, at Lackland AFB and  indicated  his  illegal  involvement  three
times with a controlled substance of  marijuana  during  June  1996  through
September 1998, and one time with stimulants in July  1998.   The  commander
indicated that had the Air Force known of his pre-service drug  involvement,
it would have rendered him  ineligible  to  enlist.   Applicant  waived  his
right to consult counsel and to submit statements in his own behalf.


Applicant was separated on 2 February 1999, in the  grade  of  airman  basic
with an uncharacterized discharge, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,
Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen,  (Fraudulent  Entry  into   Military
Service/Drug Abuse).  He spent 27 days 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,  Separations  Branch,   HQ
AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application  and  states  that  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation at the time of his  discharge.   The  discharge  action
was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the  applicant  was
provided  full  administrative  due  process.   The  records  indicate   the
member’s military service was properly reviewed and appropriate  action  was
taken.

Applicant neither submitted any new evidence, identified any errors  in  the
discharge processing, nor provided facts  to  support  his  claim  that  his
recruiter  instructed  him  to  make  false  responses  on  his   enlistment
screening application.  Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of  applicant's
request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that  he  filled  the
paperwork out with his recruiter over the telephone, and faxed  it  to  him.
He had to fill it out again when he met his recruiter  in  person.   He  was
instructed by the recruiter that any question he was unsure of to  mark  no.
He was also instructed to say no on questions regarding drug use and  if  he
had used any drugs in the past 45 days.  He states that it is not  fair  for
him to have a bad mark on his permanent record for doing what his  recruiter
instructed him to do.  Before enlisting in the Air Force he worked  for  two
different police departments, he was a  volunteer  E.M.T.  and  firefighter.
He entered the military
feeling that the military would better his record.  He does not like to  put
blame on another person, but his recruiter was aware of the  situation.   He
believes that his recruiter mislead him and he  should  not  be  accountable
for his recruiter’s negligence.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   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  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 19 October 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
      Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 April 1999, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 June 1999.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 July 1999.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.




                             RITA S. LOONEY
                             Panel Chair