RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03294
            INDEX CODE:  112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 APR 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He desires to reenlist in the service.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal  statement  and
documentation extracted from his military personnel records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 April 2005 in the grade  of
airman basic.  On 4 May 2005, applicant was notified  by  his  commander  of
his intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force  under  the
provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208, chapter 5, section  5C,  paragraph
5.15 - fraudulent entry.  Specifically, he had a history of  law  violations
that was not documented on his SF86 – Questionnaire  for  National  Security
Positions.  Had the Air Force known, it could have rendered  him  ineligible
to enlist in the Air Force.  He was advised of his  rights  in  this  matter
and acknowledged receipt  of  the  notification  on  that  same  date.   The
applicant waived his right to consult counsel  and  elected  not  to  submit
statements on his own behalf.  In a legal  review  of  the  case  file,  the
deputy  chief,  adverse  actions  found  the  case  legally  sufficient  and
recommended that he be separated.  On 5 May 2005,  the  discharge  authority
concurred with the recommendations and directed that he be  discharged  with
an entry-level separation.  Applicant was discharged on 9 May 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   AFPC/DPPRS  states   the   discharge   was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation.  The  discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any
errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   He
provided no facts warranting a change to his reenlistment eligibility  code.
   Airman   are   given   entry-level   separation/uncharacterized   service
characterization  when  separation  is  initiated  in  the  first  180  days
continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DoD) determined if  a
member served less than 180 days continuous  active  service,  it  would  be
unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited  service.
 Therefore, his uncharacterized character  of  service  is  correct  and  in
accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.

The AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  AFPC/JA states the applicant lied  when  he  was
asked about his criminal history on his  enlistment  paperwork  and  on  his
security clearance application.  From the time he requested  his  dependency
waiver in August 2004, the applicant knew that a waiver  would  be  required
for “law violations” to which he responded “NA” or not applicable.  Even  if
the applicant then believed he did not have to “legally” reveal  his  sealed
juvenile record as he now alleges, he unmistakably  lied  under  penalty  of
federal law a few months later on his security clearance  application  which
specifically directed,  “[R]eport  information  regardless  of  whether  the
record…has been ‘sealed’ or otherwise stricken from the record.”   There  is
nothing  improper  or  unjust  in  asking  for  background  information  for
purposes of a security clearance, even if that information is  in  a  sealed
record.  It is apparent the applicant purposefully  concealed  his  juvenile
record because he believed no one would  find  out.   Most  telling  is  the
applicant’s  admission  that  he  only  told  the   truth   after   becoming
“suspicious that they had found out about my juvenile record.”

The applicant’s actions and decisions as an  adult  are  solely  responsible
for  his  current  position.   The  applicant  recounts  that  his  squadron
commander asked  if  he  wanted  to  stay  or  go  after  discovery  of  the
fraudulent enlistment.  The applicant now asserts that he  “could  not  lose
time” awaiting a decision regarding a waiver.  Despite the  declaration  the
applicant made  on  24  August  2004  that  he  made  appropriate  financial
arrangements to support his family  during  training  and  while  on  active
duty, the applicant now admits he did not have such plans and  censures  the
recruiters because they “never mentioned anything about  being  recycled  or
held back.

The  applicant’s  RE  code  barring  reentry  is  appropriate  because   his
misrepresentations indicate dishonest conduct, poor judgment,  unreliability
and untrustworthiness.  In the context of a security clearance, the  purpose
of a trustworthiness determination is to decide if it is clearly  consistent
with the national interest for an applicant to  be  granted  eligibility  to
hold  a  position  requiring  such   trust.    An   overall   common   sense
determination is made considering all the available facts.   Included  among
the criteria  is  whether  the  applicant  made  misrepresentations  to  any
federal agency.  Having lied on his  first  application,  the  applicant  is
likely a poor candidate for a security clearance now.

The AFPC/JA complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 December 2006, the evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment within 30 days  (Exhibit  E).   As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After reviewing the evidence of  record
and  the  applicant’s  submission,  it  is  our  opinion  that   given   the
circumstances surrounding his separation from the Air  Force,  the  RE  code
assigned appears to  be  proper  and  in  compliance  with  the  appropriate
directives.  The applicant has not provided any evidence  which  would  lead
us to believe otherwise.  Therefore, we agree with the  offices  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.
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 issue involved.  Therefore, the request  for
a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2006-
03294 in Executive Session on 23 January 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 6 Nov 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 6 Dec 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 06.





                       CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                       Panel Chair