RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00992
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 Oct 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  character  of  service  be  changed  from   “uncharacterized   to
“honorable.”

The narrative reason for his discharge  be  changed  from  “Fraudulent
Entry” to medical or an equivalent reason.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

No medical abnormalities were discovered during his processing at  the
Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) or during  any  evaluation
for his discharge.  Fraudulent  entry  is  incorrect  based  on  these
evaluations and the  fact  there  are  no  previous  hospitalizations,
treatments, or complaints of lower back pain.

Fraudulent entry is also unjust because  he  requested  to  return  to
training after his medical evaluations, but was denied.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a form,  “Confirmation  of
Medical  Examination,”  dated  3  Apr  03,  which  certifies  him   as
physically fit.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 27 Jul 95 in the
grade of Airman First Class.  After starting Basic  Military  Training
the applicant began developing low back pain associated with prolonged
standing, marching, and drilling.  On 15 Aug 95, the applicant  met  a
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and was diagnosed with mechanical lower
back pain, which existed prior to service (EPTS).  On 18 Aug  95,  his
training squadron commander  notified  him  he  was  recommending  his
discharge from the Air  Force  for  fraudulent  entry.   The  specific
reason was the applicant’s concealment  of  a  prior  service  medical
condition, which if revealed would have resulted in rejection  of  his
enlistment.  The applicant failed to indicate on his SF93 that he  had
recurrent back  pain.   The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification on 18 Aug 95 and waived his right to consult counsel  and
submit statements in his behalf.  Subsequently,  after  receiving  the
training squadron commander’s recommendation and a  finding  that  the
discharge action was legally sufficient, the training group  commander
approved the applicant’s discharge with  an  entry  level  separation.
The applicant was discharged on     24 Aug 95.  Additional  facts  are
presented in the evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.  The applicant was unable to complete his first week of basic
training due to mechanical back pain he had experienced since age  13.
The applicant’s argument that no abnormalities were noted at the  MEPS
or at the time of in-service examination  is  without  merit  and  his
assertion there was no complaint of back pain prior to service  is  in
conflict with evidence of the service record.

Airmen are  in  entry-level  status  during  the  first  180  days  of
continuous military service and if administratively  separated  during
this period  receive  an  entry-level  separation.   Fraudulent  entry
involves 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 complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
11 Jun 06 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a  response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s  request
to change the character  of  his  service  from  “uncharacterized”  to
“honorable.”  We note that at the time of the  applicant’s  discharge,
he had served approximately 28 days, which appropriately and correctly
resulted in  an  entry-level  discharge  without  characterization  of
service.  Notwithstanding this  determination,  some  doubt  has  been
created among the Board regarding whether the  applicant  enlisted  in
the Air Force under fraudulent circumstances.  Although it appears the
applicant clearly checked no on the SF  93  regarding  recurrent  back
pain, we note that he did indicate prior illnesses on other  areas  of
the  form.   The  Board  wonders  why  the  applicant  may  have  been
forthcoming about one area of his health and  not  another.   While  a
strict interpretation of the meaning of “fraudulent enlistment”  might
lead  one  to  conclude  the  applicant  did  enlist  fraudulently  by
knowingly concealing his back problems, the Board finds his  assertion
he advised his recruiter plausible and does not believe the  applicant
had any intent to create a fraud.  Further,  in  the  opinion  of  the
Board, the medical record concerning  the  applicant’s  pre-enlistment
back problems were not so well documented so as  to  indicate  to  the
Board the applicant understood the nature of his back pain.  While the
applicant should be held accountable for his own actions, we note  his
youth at the time and find it reasonable that his  error  in  judgment
may have been influenced by his recruiter.  Therefore, in the interest
of equity and justice, we believe his records should be  corrected  to
the extent noted below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to  show  that  his  DD  Form  214,
“Certificate of Release or Discharge  from  Active  Duty,”  Block  26,
“Separation Code,” be changed  to  “KFF,”  and  Block  28,  “Narrative
Reason for Separation” be changed to “Secretarial Authority.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2005-
00992 in Executive Session on 20 June 2006, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Mar 05, w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memo, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 May 06.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 06.




                                   MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-00992


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 his
DD Form 214, “Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty,” Block 26, “Separation Code,” be changed to “KFF,” and Block
28, “Narrative Reason for Separation” be changed to “Secretarial
Authority.”






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency