RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03002
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 Jun 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reevaluated so she can demonstrate she is qualified to serve in
the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her Air Force recruiter advised her not to list  her  past  counseling
history when she was  going  through  the  recruitment  process.   She
followed his instructions because she did not want to hurt her chances
of entering the Air Force.  While in basic training,  her  grandfather
passed away and she was sent  to  a  counselor.   When  asked  by  the
counselor if she had been counseled before,  she  answered  yes.   The
counselor called and got her previous records  .   After  her  records
were reviewed, she was  subsequently  found  ineligible  for  the  Air
Force.  She believes she has been done an injustice because she  tried
to be a good “soldier” and followed her leader’s instructions.

In  support  of  her  application,  applicant  submits   a   statement
summarizing the events leading to her discharge, copy of her  DD  Form
214, a copy of paperwork related to  a  Congressional  Inquiry,  which
includes a  statement  from  a  psychotherapist,  a  letter  from  her
stepfather, and other paperwork associated with her discharge.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 24 Nov  03.   On
10 Dec 03, her training squadron section commander notified her he was
recommending  her  discharge  from  the  Air   Force   for   Erroneous
Enlistment.

The reason for the commander’s actions was the applicant had a history
of mental health treatment that was not documented at entry.  Had  the
Air Force identified the history prior to her  enlistment,  she  would
not have been allowed to enter.

The applicant acknowledged receipt on the same day, waived  her  right
to military legal counsel, and waived her right to  submit  statements
in her behalf.  The commander then recommended to the Group  commander
the applicant be discharged for the reason indicated above.

The Wing Staff Judge Advocate found  the  proposed  discharge  legally
sufficient on 12 Dec 03 and recommended  the  applicant  be  separated
with an entry-level separation.

The applicant was discharged on 19 Dec 03 with uncharacterized service
with an entry-level separation for “Erroneous Entry.”   The  applicant
received   a   “2C”   RE   code,   “Entry-level   separation   without
characterization of service.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s   request.    The
applicant states her recruiter gave her explicit instructions  not  to
disclose her past Attention Deficit Disorder  (ADD),  depression,  and
counseling issues that spanned over 18 months.

Complete and honest disclosure is required of every enlistee for  many
reasons.  The entry prerequisites of the Air Force  are  in  place  to
assure that only qualified applicants  are  accessed  and  allowed  to
serve in critical Air Force  specialties.   These  rules  protect  the
individual and the Air Force.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

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 applicant did not submit  any  evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing and has not provided any facts warranting a change  to  her
RE code.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
20 Jan 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant indicates  in  the
statement written to her Congressman that “if I had said anything,  it
would prevent  me  from  entering  the  military,”  which  appears  to
indicate her understanding she was doing something wrong.  Even if  we
accept as fact the recruiter told her to conceal information, it  does
not negate the fact she was not qualified to enter the  military  when
she did and that her subsequent discharge was correct.  Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
03002 in Executive Session on 2 March 2006, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Panel Chair
      Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Jan 06.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Jan 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jan 06.




                                   MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                   Panel Chair