DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01513 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  discharge  waiver  package  for  fraudulent  entry  be  waived  so 
that he can reenlist.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The  denial  of  his  discharge  waiver  was  unjust  because  it  was 
inconsistent based on the commander’s approval of cases similar 
to  his,  the  lack  of  consideration  for  support  from  his 
supervisory chain of command and letters of character reference, 
and the disregard of his outstanding active service record. 
 
During  his  initial  contact  with  the  recruiter,  he  stumbled  in 
his office, unannounced, slightly nervous, and not sure what to 
expect.  He was asked a series of qualifying questions and had 
no problem answering honestly.  When he was asked if he had ever 
used  illegal  drugs,  he  said  "no,”  because  he  had  not  used 
marijuana  in  almost  four  years,  so  his  instinct  was  to  say  no 
and  did  not  realize  that  it  might  not  be  disqualifying.  
However, after saying “no,” he was afraid to change his answer.  
The first opportunity he had with a security officer he informed 
her  of  the  three  incidences  he  had  used  marijuana;  the  last 
occurring  in  2008.    He  knew  what  he  did  was  wrong,  especially 
when it involves signing official documents; he should have come 
clean at the recruiting office.  However, as an airman, he felt 
the need to tell the truth.  
 
He deserved the waiver; however, unfortunately, that was not the 
case.  He later found out that other airman had admitted the use 
of  illegal  drugs  once  they  arrived  at  technical  school.    These 
were  airmen  who  he  enrolled  with,  who  had  used  marijuana  a 
multitude  more  times  than  he  did,  and  some  who  had  used  drugs 
that were of a harsher nature than his, yet, they were given a 
waiver. 
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement,  a  chronology  of  the  events  leading  up  to  his 
discharge and an extract of his discharge package.  
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 

 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 24 May 11, 
for a period of six years.   
 
His  commander  notified  him,  on  27  Feb  12,  that  he  was 
recommending  him  for  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for 
“Fraudulent Enlistment.”  Specifically, on 22 Aug 11, during the 
applicant's  pre-screening  interview  for  his  security  clearance, 
he  admitted  to  using  marijuana  three  times  prior  to  his 
enlistment.    The  applicant  deliberately  misrepresented  and/or 
concealed  facts  on  his  27  Jan  11,  DD  Form  1966,  Record  of 
Military  Processing  –  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States,  which 
he certified on 24 May 11 and his 26 Jan 11, AF Form 2030, USAF 
Drug  and  Alcohol  Abuse  Certificate,  which  he  certified  on 
24 May 11.    Had  the  Air  Force  known  of  the  applicant's  pre-
service drug involvement, it could have rendered him ineligible 
to enlist. 
 
The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  of 
discharge  and  was  advised  of  his  right  to  consult  with  legal 
counsel  and  submit  statements  in  his  own  behalf.    The 
applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be retained and 
he  be  allowed  to  retain  his  Top  Secret  clearance;  however,  his 
waiver request was disapproved by the discharge authority.  The 
base legal office recommended the waiver package be approved and 
upon review of the case, found it legally sufficient to support 
the basis for separation.  On 3 Mar 12, the discharge authority 
directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge 
without probation and rehabilitation. 
 
The applicant was honorably discharged, on 16 Mar 12, by reason 
of  “Fraudulent  Enlistment,”  and  was  issued  an  RE  code  of 
2C (Involuntarily  separated  with  an  honorable  discharge;  or 
entry level separation without characterization of service).  He 
was credited with 9 months and 23 days of active duty service. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOS  recommends  denial.    Based  on  the  documentation  on 
file  in  the  master  personnel  records,  the  discharge  was 
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of 
the  discharge  instruction  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the 
discharge authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence 
or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the 
discharge processing.  He provides no facts warranting a change 
to his narrative reason for separation.   
 
The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  30  May  12  for  review  and  comment  within  30  days.  
As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been  received  by  this  office 
(Exhibit D). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  error  or  injustice  warranting 
partial  relief.    While  we  note  the  applicant’s  stated  request, 
we  believe  the  more  appropriate  correction  would  be  to  change 
the applicant’s reentry and separation codes.  In this respect, 
while we found no error in the discharge processing, it appears 
the applicant’s immediate commander and the SJA recommended his 
retention  based  on  their  view  of  the  circumstances  surrounding 
his  separation  and  his  overall  performance  and  character.    In 
our view, the evidence provided is sufficient to support that it 
is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  correct  the  record  as  stated 
above.    In  view  of  this,  we  recommend  changing  the  applicant’s 
reason  for  separation  to  Secretarial  Authority  and  the  RE  code 
to 3K, respectively.  The RE code of “3K,” is a code which can 
be  waived  to  allow  reenlistment  provided  he  meets  all  other 
requirements  for  enlistment  under  an  existing  prior  service 
program.    Whether  he  is  successful  or  not  will  depend  on  the 
needs of the respective service concerned and our recommendation 
in no way guarantees he will be successful in returning to any 
branch  of  the  service.    Therefore,  we  recommend  his  records  be 
corrected as indicated below. 
 
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(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
 
The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air 
Force  relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  on 
16 March 2012, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-

3208,  (Secretarial  Authority),  with  a  Separation  Program 
Designator (SPD) code of “KFF” and a Reentry code of “3K.” 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2012-01513  in  Executive  Session  on  5  November  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.    The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 12, w/atchs. 
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 9 May 12. 
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 12. 
 
 
 
 
                                   Panel Chair