RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00007
                                     INDEX CODE:  112.10, 128.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  MR. THOMAS W. TURCOTTE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 October 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge be upgraded from general to fully honorable, her  reenlistment
eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that allows  a  waiver  to  reenlist
into the military, and all documentation regarding fraudulent enlistment  be
expunged from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her enlistment was  not  procured  by  false  representation  or  deliberate
concealment.  She was unaware of her condition(s) at the time she  completed
the DD Form 2492, DoD Medical Examination Review Board (DODMERB)  Report  of
Medical History, and  during  her  in-processing,  as  she  had  never  been
diagnosed by a competent medical source prior to her entry at the Air  Force
Academy.

In support of her appeal, the applicant  submits  a  personal  statement,  a
memorandum from her counsel, and a copy of her DD Form 214,  Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 July 2004, the applicant entered active duty as a Air  Force  Cadet  at
the United States Air Force  Academy  (USAFA).   Prior  to  her  entry  onto
active duty, the applicant completed a DD Form 2492 as part of  her  medical
screening on 17 July 2003.  Her response for question 22 of  section  7  was
marked that  “she  never  had,  nor  does  she  have,  depression,  anxiety,
excessive worry, or nervousness.”  Following several  peer  reports  of  the
applicant’s behavior of not eating and acting  “violently,”  the  commandant
directed the applicant be evaluated by  a  mental  health  officer.   On  12
October 2004, during the commander-directed mental  health  evaluation,  the
applicant admitted that she had “experienced a depressed mood and  decreased
interest, once every two months, lasting two days to one week for  the  last
two to three years, and in February 2004 she cut herself on  the  arm  daily
for a week.”

On 11 January 2005, the Commandant of Cadets notified the applicant  of  his
intent to begin discharge action against her for fraudulent  entry.   On  19
January 2005, the applicant acknowledged receipt  of  the  notification  and
chose to consult with defense counsel, to exercise her right  to  a  hearing
before a Hearing Officer, and to submit statements in her  own  behalf.   On
24 January 2005, a Hearing Officer was appointed to evaluate the  allegation
that the applicant failed to disclose her aberrant behavior.  On 7  February
2005, the Hearing Officer found the allegation had  been  established  by  a
preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing.

On 17 March 2005, the Deputy Staff Judge  Advocate  found  the  case  to  be
legally sufficient and recommended the applicant  be  disenrolled  from  the
Academy  and  discharged  with  a  general  (under   honorable   conditions)
characterization of service.  On  21 March  2005,  the  discharge  authority
approved the applicant’s disenrollment and directed she be  discharged  with
a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFA/JA recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  JA  states  that  no
new, credible evidence was presented  to  contradict  the  findings  of  the
Hearing Officer, or the decision of the  separation  authority.   A  general
(under honorable conditions)  discharge  is  totally  appropriate  in  cases
involving fraudulent entry.  The applicant failed to disclose  her  aberrant
behavior on the DD Form 2492 when she originally completed the form in  July
2003.  She continued to behave in a self-destructive  manner;  however,  she
again failed to disclose her behavior on  the  form  during  her  June  2004
inprocessing when all of the cadets were briefed and given  the  opportunity
to make corrections or updates to the DD Form 2492.  The DD Form  2492  does
not ask whether or not a competent  medical  source  had  diagnosed  certain
conditions prior to completion of the form.  It simply  inquires  “Have  you
ever  had  or  do  you  have  depression,  anxiety,  excessive   worry,   or
nervousness?”  Without question, the applicant was  aware  of  her  behavior
that would fall into this category and she knew the form required  a  check-
mark in the “yes” square.  Whether the applicant could have gotten a  waiver
and been admitted to the Academy in spite of her behavior  is  not  relevant
to the discussion.  The applicant prevented the Academy from  considering  a
possible waiver when she failed to disclose her behavior on  the  form.  The
argument made by the applicant’s attorney is purely a  legal  argument.   He
disagrees with and argues contrary to the findings of the  Hearing  Officer.
The applicant was afforded appropriate due process throughout the  discharge
process.

The JA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel responds it’s no surprise  the  advisory  recommends
no corrective action since it comes from the same command  that  caused  the
applicant’s general discharge in the first place.   It  is  an  overkill  to
issue a general discharge under the  circumstances  of  his  clients’  case.
The insinuation that his client intentionally defrauded  the  Air  Force  to
secure  entry  is  an  absurd  proposition  that  is  simply  not  factually
supportable.  It is simply unfair to brand a young person with a  less  than
fully honorable discharge absent any serious belief  that  she  intended  to
defraud the Air Force.

The counsel’s rebuttal 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 error or injustice.  The applicant did not  provide  persuasive
evidence showing the information in the discharge case  was  erroneous,  her
substantial rights were  violated,  or  that  her  commanders  abused  their
discretionary authority.  The character of discharge and RE code which  were
issued at the time  of  the  applicant’s  separation  appear  to  accurately
reflect the circumstances of her separation and we do not find  them  to  be
in  error  or  unjust.   Therefore,  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.   Accordingly,  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 this application in  Executive
Session on 7 March 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Jeffrey R. Shelton, Member
                 Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-00007:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, USAFA/JA, dated 11 Jan 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jan 07.
    Exhibit E.  Counsel’s Rebuttal, dated 13 Feb 07.




                                   CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair