RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02046
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 JAN 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) and separation codes be  changed  to
allow him to reenlist in military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He requested an early separation because  of  a  Defective  Enlistment
Agreement, nonfulfillment of Government  Contract.   He  was  informed
that he would be eligible for enlistment after one year.

Applicant's complete submission, with an attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 March 2004, the applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF), as an airman basic (AB) for a period of six years.  He signed
an Air Force (AF) Form 3007, Guaranteed Training Enlistment  Non-Prior
Service - United States Air Force, guaranteeing him  training  in  the
Air Force Specialty (AFS) 3P031 (Security Forces Apprentice).

On 16 March 2004, during the first week  of  Basic  Military  Training
(BMT), the applicant  self-referred  himself  to  Behavioral  Analysis
Service (BAS).  On 17 March 2004, he underwent an  evaluation  by  the
BAS and was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed  Mood
and a recommendation that he be returned  to  duty  with  a  scheduled
follow-up appointment.

Lackland AFB Form 105A, Basic Training Record,  dated  6  April  2004,
indicates the applicant returned from a  reclassification  appointment
with  an  option  for  discharge  due  to  the  non-fulfillment  of  a
government  contract  (guaranteed  job).   In  addition,   Form   105A
reflected the applicant was seen again by the BAS and they recommended
he be disqualified from the Security Forces Career  field.   Based  on
the guaranteed job contract  he  had,  the  applicant  elected  to  be
discharged.  The Operations Officer indicated the applicant was likely
a fraudulent entry individual because he did not  disclose  his  prior
mental health history to the Air Force.

On 7 April 2004, the applicant  submitted  an  AF  Form  31,  Airman’s
Request for Early Separation/Separation Based  on  Change  in  Service
Obligation, requesting to be discharged from active duty  as  soon  as
possible.

On 14 April 2004, the separation authority  approved  the  applicant’s
request for early separation.

The applicant was separated in the  grade  of  airman  basic  with  an
uncharacterized entry-level separation on 21  April  2004,  under  the
provisions  of  Air  Force  Instruction   (AFI)   36-3208,   Defective
Enlistment Agreement.  He was issued a separation code of  KDS,  which
reflects a defective enlistment agreement and  an  RE  code  of  “4M,”
which  denotes  an  Air  Force   breach   of   enlistment/reenlistment
agreement.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS indicates that  based  upon  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's records his discharge was consistent with  the  procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.   Also,  the
discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge  authority.
The applicant has not provided any evidence or identified  any  errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge process.

Air  Force  policy  is  that  entry-level  separations/uncharacterized
service characterizations are given to  servicemembers  who  have  not
completed more than  180  days  of  continuous  active  service.   The
Department of Defense (DOD) determined if a servicemember served  less
than 180 days of active service, that it would be unfair to the member
to characterize that service.  The applicant's uncharacterized service
is correct and  in  accordance  with  DOD  and  AFIs.   HQ  AFPC/DPPRS
recommends the requested relief be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
15 July 2005, 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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the  existence  of  an  injustice  or   an   error.    After   careful
consideration of the circumstances of this case and the  documentation
provided by the applicant, we  are  not  persuaded  a  change  in  his
separation and RE codes is warranted.  In this respect, the  applicant
was separated from the Air Force with an  uncharacterized  entry-level
separation based on a defective enlistment agreement.   The  applicant
signed the Guaranteed  Training  Enlistment  Agreement  for  non-prior
service individuals thereby guaranteeing him  training  in  Air  Force
Specialty – 3P031 -  Security  Forces  Apprentice.   However,  shortly
after entering  BMT,  the  applicant  self-referred  to  the  Behavior
Analysis Service (BAS) and underwent a Mental  Health  Evaluation  and
was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder  with  depressed  mood.   At
that time he was returned to duty; however, upon his return to BAS for
a follow-up evaluation, it was recommended he be disqualified from the
Security Forces Career field.  As a result, the  applicant  requested,
and was approved for, an early separation based on his  preference  to
be discharged rather than be  retrained  into  another  career  field.
Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears  the
processing  of  his  entry-level  separation,   with   the   resulting
separation  and  RE  codes,  was  appropriate  and   accomplished   in
accordance with Air Force policy.   The  applicant  has  not  provided
persuasive evidence warranting a  change  in  his  separation  and  RE
codes.  In this respect, the Board notes it was the applicant’s choice
to request separation in lieu of retraining into another career field.
 Lastly, the Board  notes  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  code  is  a
waiverable code and depending upon  the  needs  of  the  service,  the
applicant may be eligible  to  apply  for  reenlistment;  however,  he
should understand that his current RE code in no way obligates any  of
the Services to accept him for enlistment.  Therefore, in the  absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
favorable action on the relief requested.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2005-02046 in Executive Session on 17 August 2005 under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
                       Ms. LeLoy W. Carroll, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-02046 was considered

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Jul 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 05.




                             JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                             Panel Chair