RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02853
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 MARCH 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for  separation  of  “conditions  that  interfere  with
military service – not disability –  character  and  behavior  disorder”  be
changed.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the reason for separation listed on  his  DD  Form  214,  is  in
error and completely false.  He was offered a football scholarship  and  was
told by the base general that he could  accept  it.   He  went  on  to  play
college football.  He has been thinking about joining  the  military  again,
due to the World’s current instability.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 25 Sep 92, for  a  period  of
four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 21 Dec 92, the squadron commander notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending he be discharged for a condition that interfered with  military
service,  specifically  for   an   adjustment   disorder.    The   commander
recommended an entry-level separation based on applicant being diagnosed  by
a psychologist as having an adjustment disorder,  which  adversely  affected
his duty performance and was so severe that his ability  to  function  in  a
military environment was significantly impaired. The applicant  acknowledged
receipt of the notification on 21 Dec 92, and waived his rights  to  consult
with legal counsel and submit statements on his own behalf.

The Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally  sufficient  and
recommended the applicant be separated from the service with an  entry-level
separation  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.   On  23  Dec  92,  the
discharge authority  approved  the  separation  and  directed  applicant  be
separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation.

On 23 Dec 92, applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level  separation,
by reason  of  “conditions  that  interfere  with  military  service  –  not
disability – character and behavior disorder.”  Applicant  served  2  months
and 29 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   based   on   the
documentation on file in the master personnel  records,  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation, and the discharge was within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge   authority.    DPPRS   notes   airmen   are   given   entry-level
separation/uncharacterized  service  characterization  when  separation   is
initiated  in  the  first  180  days  of  continuous  active  service.   The
Department of Defense (DoD) determined if a  member  served  less  than  180
days of continuous active service it would be unfair to the member  and  the
service  to  characterize  their  limited   service.    DPPRS   opines   the
applicant’s  uncharacterized  character  of  service  is  correct   and   in
accordance with  DoD  and  Air  Force  instructions.   DPPRS  concludes  the
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing, and did  not  provide  any  facts
warranting a change to his narrative reason for separation.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. Applicant states  several  of
the facts outlined in the  Air  Force  evaluation  were  completely  untrue.
After being informed by his family, that he was offered a small  scholarship
to play college football, he contacted his  base  commander  to  ask  if  he
could pursue this  once  in  a  lifetime  opportunity,  and  was  given  the
approval by his commander.  The letter also stated he  was  diagnosed  by  a
psychologist as having an adjustment disorder which adversely  affected  his
duty  performance.   He  does  not  know  how  you  can  confuse  having  an
adjustment disorder with asking to be released  to  play  college  football?
He was never seen by any psychologist then, and he is not sure how this  got
in his record.

He has no motive for having this changed.  He would like  it  changed  as  a
matter of pride.  He found this tragic error in  an  attempt  to  check  his
reenlistment status as he was sick of what was happening over in  Iraq,  and
was considering giving up his own  business  to  try  and  help  the  United
States.  He is willing to take any test or talk to any psychologist, at  his
own expense.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After careful review  of  the  applicant’s
complete submission, the discharge appears to  be  in  compliance  with  the
governing  instruction  and  we  find  no  evidence  to  indicate  that  his
separation was inappropriate.  Therefore, we agree  with  the  findings  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility  and  adopt
its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the  absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting  the  relief
sought in this application.


_________________________________________________________________

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-2006-
02853 in Executive Session on 5 December 2006  and         3  January  2007,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
02853 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 3 Oct 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Nov 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Dec 06.





                                             MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                                             Panel Chair