RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02783
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX               COUNSEL:  NO

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 Mar 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her erroneous discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was only 18 years old when  she  entered  the  Air  Force  and  did  not
realize  the  ramifications  of  being  upfront  with  and  doing  what  her
recruiter told her to do. Her recruiter was aware  of  her  previous  mental
health treatment and advised her to withhold the information from MEPS,  and
also advised her that as long as she had a letter  from  her  doctor,  there
would be no problems with her going into the Air  Force.  Applicant  further
contends that she has passed all of the tests to  become  a  police  officer
but they will not hire her due to her discharge, and  it  is  difficult  for
her to get a good job at the age of 22.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits two  letters  from  her  doctor,
dated 8 January 2002 and 12 March 2002,  she  contends  were  given  to  her
recruiter before she enlisted in the Air Force.

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

________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 3 September 2002, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and,  while
subsequently attending Security  Forces  Technical  Training,  self-referred
herself to the WHMC Behavioral Analysis Service.  On  13 January  2003,  she
was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression  which
was  determined  to  have  existed  prior  to  service  and  had  not   been
permanently aggravated  by  military  service.  Applicant  was  subsequently
notified by her commander on 31 January 2003 that he  was  recommending  her
discharge from the Air Force  for  erroneous  enlistment,  and  was  further
recommending that she receive  an  entry-level  separation.  On  31  January
2003,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  her  commander’s   notification
memorandum and waived her  right  to  consult  counsel  as  well  as  submit
statements in her own behalf. Applicant  was  subsequently  discharged  from
Active Duty on 7 February 2003 and, since she had served less than 180  days
of continuous active service, was given an entry-level  separation  with  an
uncharacterized  service  characterization,  with  a  narrative  reason  for
separation of erroneous entry.

Since the Department of Defense  (DoD)  has  determined  that  it  would  be
unfair to a service member and the service to characterize a limited  period
of  service  of  less  than  180  days,   airmen   are   given   entry-level
separation/uncharacterized  service  characterization  when  separation   is
initiated during the first 180 days of continuous active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied as  the  applicant  did  not
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in
the discharge processing, and has provided no facts warranting a  change  to
her  uncharacterized  entry-level  separation.  They   further   state   the
discharge was within the discretion  of  the  discharge  authority  and  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation. Further, her uncharacterized character of  service  is
correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the Air Force Evaluation on 21 October 2006,  stating
that she was not trying to get back into the Air Force and that she did  not
feel the Air Force is trying to cause a hardship  for  her  or  her  family.
She stated that she does not feel that her discharge is  correct  since  she
did not serve the full 180 days,  and  reiterated  that  she  is  trying  to
better herself in the job market so as to better  provide  for  her  family,
and that her current  discharge  makes  it  very  tough  and  is  causing  a
hardship.

Applicant also furnished a letter from her mother dated 21 October 2006,  in
which she supports  applicant’s  contentions.    Applicant’s  mother  states
that since the applicant was only 17 years old at the time, she is  the  one
who kept in contact with her recruiter, and her recruiter was informed  that
applicant had been under a doctor’s care for a few months while she  was  in
high school.  Applicant’s mother states that she was told by  the  recruiter
that if they could get a letter stating applicant’s condition, it would  not
be a problem.  Applicant’s mother  also  furnished  copies  of  the  same  8
January 2002 and 12 March 2002 letters provided by the applicant,  and  also
contends they were given to applicant’s recruiter  before  she  enlisted  in
the Air Force.

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 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  an  error  or  injustice  as  concerns  applicant’s  Type  of
Separation.  We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the  entry-
level separation  characterization  received  by  the  applicant  should  be
changed to an honorable discharge.  While we are  not  unsympathetic  toward
the applicant’s current job dilemma, we note the uncharacterized  separation
is not an unfavorable reflection upon her military service nor should it  be
confused with other types of separations.  Rather, as was noted by  the  Air
Force, an entry-level separation with uncharacterized  service  is  used  in
those cases where the member has not yet completed six months of service  at
the time  separation  proceedings  were,  for  whatever  reason,  initiated.
Hence, an uncharacterized separation  merely  connotes  the  brevity  of  an
individual’s membership in the service and may not, in  and  of  itself,  be
viewed as a defamation of  applicant’s  character.   Accordingly,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion  that
the applicant’s separation was not erroneous or unjust.  Therefore,  in  the
absence of persuasive evidence indicating that the  applicant  was  deprived
of rights to which  she  was  entitled,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an injustice to  warrant  changing  the  applicant’s  Narrative
Reason for Separation.  After reviewing the evidence of record,  it  appears
that her separation was  proper  and  in  compliance  with  the  appropriate
regulations in effect at the time.  However,  evidence  has  been  presented
that applicant disclosed her prior service mental health  treatment  to  her
recruiter and may have been advised not to disclose it. Since her record  is
clear of any disciplinary problems and the evidence  does  not  support  the
fact that she committed an erroneous act during her  enlistment  processing,
we believe that the benefit of any doubt should be resolved  in  her  favor.
Therefore, we recommend her Narrative Reason for Separation be corrected  to
the extent indicated below.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of  her  discharge  on  7
February 2003, the narrative  reason  for  her  discharge  was  “Secretarial
Authority,” with a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of “KFF.”

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2006-02783
in Executive Session on 16 November 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                       Mr. James L. Sommer, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated.7 Sep 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPPRS Letter, dated 27 Sep 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Oct 06, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair