RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03238
            INDEX CODE:  A62.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 Apr 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The character of her service be upgraded to honorable by reason  of  a
pre-existing medical condition.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did not report her asthma condition based on  the  advice  of  her
recruiter.  She trusted her recruiter and did not believe that she was
falsifying her application.

In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27  Jan  04  for  a
period of six years in the grade of airman basic.

On 11 Mar 04, the applicant’s  commander  notified  her  that  he  was
recommending the applicant  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for
fraudulent entry.  The reason for this action was that  the  applicant
intentionally concealed a prior service medical  condition,  which  if
revealed, could have resulted in the rejection of her enlistment.  The
Air Force discovered she had asthma.  The medical condition could have
rendered her ineligible to enlist in the Air Force.  The applicant was
advised of her rights in the matter and that an entry level separation
would be recommended.

On 12 Mar 04, the  Office  of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the
discharge case file to  be  legally  sufficient  and  recommended  the
applicant be separated with an entry level separation.

On 15 Mar 04, the discharge authority approved  the  discharge  action
and directed the applicant be given an entry level separation.

On 17 Mar 04, the applicant was separated under the provisions of  AFI
36-3208 (Fraudulent Entry into Military Service) with an  entry  level
separation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial  noting  the  applicant  was
administratively  discharged  with  an  entry  level  separation   for
fraudulent entry due to her concealment of a history of asthma treated
with inhalers.   He further noted her  assertion  that  her  recruiter
told her to conceal this  history.   He  indicated  a  review  of  her
civilian medical records also showed she did not report a  history  of
symptoms of depression, anxiety and a suicide attempt.

The Medical Consultant noted that airmen are  in  entry  level  status
during the first 180 days of continuous active military service and if
administratively separated during this period receive an  entry  level
separation. This discharge does not attempt to characterize  the  type
of service as either good or bad.  An honorable  characterization  may
be given by the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  when  it  is  clearly
warranted by unusual circumstances of personal conduct and performance
of military  duty.   Fraudulent  entry  is  one  involving  deliberate
deception on the part of the member.  An airman may be discharged  for
fraudulent entry based on the procurement of a  fraudulent  enlistment
or  period  of  military  service  through  any  deliberate   material
misrepresentation, omission, or concealment that if known at the  time
of enlistment or entry into a period of military service,  might  have
resulted in rejection.  The  fraud  may  occur  at  any  time  in  the
enlistment process.  Erroneous enlistment is one that would  not  have
occurred had the relevant facts been known by the Air  Force,  and  it
was not the result of fraudulent conduct on the part  of  the  member.
According to the Medical Consultant, a review of the  service  records
showed by a preponderance of evidence the action  and  disposition  in
this case were proper and equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air
Force directives that implement the law, and no change in the  records
is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating that she disagreed with the Medical  Consultant’s  advisory
opinion.  She stated that  it  contained  a  false  statement  in  the
“Facts” category, and she disputes other comments made  regarding  the
facts of her case.  She believes she is the victim of her  recruiter’s
attempt to meet a quota.  He lied and she can prove it.   She  is  not
asking for an honorable discharge, she just wants a general discharge.
 She would also like a test to prove she does not have asthma.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant noted the inaccuracy in  his  previous  medical
advisory.  However, in his view,  it  does  not  alter  the  fact  the
applicant had disqualifying asthma prior to service that she failed to
reveal at the time of her entrance medical examination, and  does  not
change the conclusions and recommendations of that advisory.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
applicant on 26 Sep 05 for review and response.  As of this  date,  no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The evidence of record indicates
the applicant was given an entry level separation for fraudulent entry
into military service based on her intentional concealment of  a  pre-
service medical condition, which if revealed, could have  resulted  in
the rejection of her enlistment.  The applicant contends she  did  not
report her asthma condition on the advice of her recruiter.   We  find
no evidence which would  lead  us  to  believe  that  her  involuntary
separation was improper or contrary to the governing  directive  under
which it was effected.  In view of the foregoing, and in  the  absence
of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we conclude that the applicant
has failed to sustain her burden  of  establishing  she  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-03238 in Executive Session on 3 Nov 05, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
      Mr. James L. Sommer, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 May 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 3 Aug 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 29 Aug 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 23 Sep 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Sep 05.



                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair