RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01940
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His entry-level  involuntary  separation  not  be  characterized  as
“fraudulent entry.”

His  Reenlistment  Eligibility  (RE)  code  be  changed  from  “2C,”
“Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level
separation without characterization of service,” to  one  that  will
allow him to enlist in the Army National Guard.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His recruiter  and  Military  Entrance  Processing  Squadron  (MEPS)
representative told him to omit certain items  from  his  enlistment
paperwork.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 16 Mar 04.  On
31 Mar 04, the Discharge Processing facility (DPRAA),  notified  the
applicant’s squadron commander that it had interviewed the applicant
as a possible erroneous entry for law violations.   DPRAA  indicated
that the applicant stated that he had informed his recruiter of  the
charges.  The squadron commander  was  advised  that  the  applicant
would require a waiver to remain in the Air Force.  On 2 Apr 04, the
applicant was interviewed by his squadron commander  as  a  possible
erroneous entry for law violations and to determine if he  would  be
recommended for a waiver.  The squadron commander recommended to the
group commander on 8 Apr 04  that  the  applicant’s  request  for  a
waiver  be  disapproved.   On  13  Apr  04,  the   group   commander
disapproved the applicant’s request for a waiver.

On 16 Apr 04, the applicant’s training squadron  commander  notified
him that he was recommending his discharge from the  Air  Force  for
fraudulent entry.  The reason for the  action  was  the  applicant’s
history  of  law  violations  not   documented   on   his   SF   86,
“Questionnaire for  National  Security  Positions.”   The  applicant
acknowledged receipt of the notification memorandum on  16  Apr  04.
On 16 Apr 04,  the  squadron  commander  recommended  to  the  group
commander that the applicant be discharged for fraudulent entry with
an entry-level separation.  On 22 Apr 04, the applicant notified the
squadron commander that he had consulted  counsel  and  submitted  a
written statement.  On 30 Apr 04,  the  wing  staff  judge  advocate
reviewed the discharge action against the  applicant  and  found  it
legally sufficient to  support  the  applicant’s  separation.   They
recommended that the applicant  be  separated  with  an  entry-level
separation.   On  3  May  04,  the  group  commander  approved   the
applicant’s separation from service with an entry-level  separation.
The applicant was separated on 5 May 04 with a “2C” RE code.

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request.   Based  on
the documentation in the master personnel records, the discharge was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements  of  the
discharge regulation.  The discharge was within  the  discretion  of
the discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any  evidence
or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the  discharge
processing and provided no facts warranting a change to his RE code.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant  provides
a detailed account, with names of those he claims  advised  him,  of
why he did not disclose the full list of traffic violations  he  had
received.  The applicant states that although he signed the document
stating that everything was factual, to the best of  his  knowledge,
two other individuals also signed the form.  He states that he would
be willing to take a polygraph or participate in  any  other  action
the Board would find necessary to get at the truth.

The applicant’s complete 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence  of  error  or  injustice  regarding  the  applicant’s
request to remove “fraudulent entry into military  service”  as  the
narrative reason for his separation from service.  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 office of primary responsibility 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 this portion of the relief sought in this application.

4.  Notwithstanding our  determination  above,  sufficient  relevant
evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or
injustice regarding the applicant’s request to change his  RE  code.
While  we  acknowledge  that  it   was   the   applicant’s   primary
responsibility  to  ensure  he  provided   complete   and   accurate
information at the time of his enlistment, he has created an element
of doubt regarding the role his recruiter may  have  played  in  his
decision not to disclose all  relevant  information.   As  such,  we
believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt and provided the
opportunity to apply  for  reenlistment  in  military  service.   We
believe that the waiverable RE code of “3K” is  appropriate  because
it allows the applicant  to  reenlist  provided  he  meets  required
standards and the affected military service desires to grant  him  a
waiver.  Therefore, we recommend that  the  applicant’s  records  be
corrected as indicated below.

5.  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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time  of  his
separation on 5 May 2004, he was issued a  Reenlistment  Eligibility
code of “3K.”

__________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-
01940 in Executive Session on 3 August 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Mr. James B. Russell, III, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 May 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Jun 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 04.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jul 04.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-01940


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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that at
the time of his separation on 5 May 2004, he was issued a
Reenlistment Eligibility code of “3K.”




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency