RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03189
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                  COUNSEL:  JOHN A RIORDAN

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  Apr 20, 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Narrative  Reason  For  Separation  (Fraudulent  Entry)  and  Type   of
Separation (Entry Level) be changed to allow him to reenlist  into  the  Air
Force.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Narrative Reason for Separation (fraudulent enlistment)  is  unfair  and
was not intentional  in  that  he  was  misinformed  by  a  doctor  at  MEPS
regarding his past history of depression and attempted suicide.   He  states
he told said doctor that he did have a past history of both  depression  and
attempted suicide.  When asked if he had received counseling, he  states  he
told the doctor that he had sought counseling from a school  counselor,  was
told that a guidance counselor in high school  was  not  considered  seeking
counsel, and was told  to  answer  “no”  to  questions  17f  (Depression  or
Excessive Worry) and 17h (Attempted Suicide) when  completing  his  DD  Form
2807-1, Report of Medical History.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 May 2006 for  a  period  of
four years.

On 16 June 2006,  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
recommend him for an entry level separation for fraudulent entry.

The commander  stated  the  reason  for  the  proposed  discharge  was  that
applicant had a history of attempted suicide that was not documented on  his
DD Form 2807-1, Report of Medical History, which  would  have  rendered  him
ineligible to enlist had it been known.  Applicant was provided a copy of  a
WHMC Mental Health Evaluation from the Behavioral  Analysis  Service,  dated
1 June 2006, which stated, in part, that applicant  disclosed  he  continues
to have frequent anxiety attacks and has had a total of approximately 15  of
these attacks since entering Basic Military Training.  The  evaluation  went
on to state that applicant’s civilian  history  is  concerning  in  that  he
reported  a  history  of  three  non-fatal,  self-injurious  behaviors   (an
attempted overdose and two  attempts  to  cut  his  wrist)  and  a  civilian
history of anxiety attacks.  Applicant was given  an  Axis  I  diagnosis  of
Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety which not only  failed  to  meet  retention
standards for continued military service, but was deemed so severe that  his
ability  to  function  effectively   in   the   military   environment   was
significantly impaired.

The commander advised applicant of his right to consult  legal  counsel  and
submit statements in his own behalf, both of which  he  waived  on  16  June
2006.

A legal review was conducted on 19  June  2006  in  which  the  staff  judge
advocate recommended applicant be separated with an entry level  separation.


Applicant was discharged on 23 June 2006, in the grade of Airman  Basic  (E-
1) with an uncharacterized entry level separation for fraudulent entry  into
military service, in accordance with AFI  36-3208,  paragraph  5.15.   Since
his enlistment was considered fraudulent, his total active service was  non-
creditable.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial  as  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority.   Additionally,  applicant
did not submit any evidence, provide any facts, or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing that  would  warrant  a
change to his uncharacterized entry-level  separation  or  narrative  reason
for separation.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the Air Force Evaluation  on  4  December  2006,  and
reiterated the reason for his  discharge  was  not  his  fault  and  he  was
discharged for a situation beyond  his  control  in  that  he  followed  the
directions of a doctor at MEPS by not disclosing information  regarding  his
prior service depression.  He added  that  while  attending  Basic  Military
Training, he was told to compose a document to clarify  issues  relating  to
depression and provided a copy of that  document  dated  6  June  2006.   He
states that in the document he stated that he never  needed  any  medication
or hospitalization, did not have to undergo treatment  for  his  depression,
all self-injurious attempts were a cry for help,  and  that  the  counseling
was provided by a high school guidance counselor, not a medical doctor.   He
furnished a copy  of  the  1  June  2006  Mental  Health  Evaluation  letter
contained in his discharge processing and  points  out  that  the  Chief  of
Behavioral Analysis Service at WHMC stated that “he is not considered to  be
presently  suicidal  or  homicidal.”  and  “This  Service  member   is   not
considered imminently dangerous….”

Applicant also advises that since the high school self-injurious  incidents,
he has not experienced  signs  or  symptoms  of  depression  and  has  moved
forward with his life.  He states he currently works a full time job  as  an
automotive retailer, attends school full time, and has been a  volunteer  in
his community as a firefighter since September 2004.

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 timely filed.

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.  We note the  uncharacterized  separation
is not an unfavorable reflection upon his 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  he  was
entitled, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice warranting  changes  to  the  applicant’s
narrative reason for his separation.  We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging  the  merits  of  the  case  to  include  his
assertion that he was misinformed by a doctor at  MEPS;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   Other
than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence which  would
lead us to believe that the information  contained  in  the  discharge  case
file is erroneous, that he was not afforded all the rights to which  he  was
entitled, or that  his  commanders  abused  their  discretionary  authority.
Therefore,  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-2006-03189
in Executive Session on 12 December 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                       Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Oct 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Nov 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Dec 06, w/atchs




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair