RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01674
		COUNSEL: 
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation (Fraudulent Entry into 
Military Service) along with the corresponding separation code 
of “JDA” be changed to “Secretarial Authority.”  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His former Air Force recruiter was aware of his medical history 
and advised him that his past use of prescription medicine did 
not matter.  His failure to disclose this information was based 
on her statement and position as a respected member of the Air 
Force.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of 
emails, letters to/from his Congressional Representatives, and 
character reference letters and various other documentation in 
support of his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Nov 11, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 7 Nov 11, the applicant was diagnosed with a Depressive 
Disorder (by history) by the Behavior Analysis Service.  Because 
his diagnosis was so severe, his ability to function effectively 
in the military environment was significantly impaired and did 
not meet retention standards for continued military service.  

On 9 Nov 11, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend that he be discharged from the Air Force 
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation 
of Airmen for Fraudulent Enlistment.  Specifically, the 
applicant had a history of mental health treatment and suicidal 
ideations that were not documented on his DD Form 2807-1, Report 
of Medical History; USMEPCOM Form 40-1-15-E, Supplemental Health 
Screening Questionnaire, and USMPECOM Form 601-23-5-R-E, 
Introductory Pre-Accession Interview.  The applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge, waived 
his rights to consult with counsel and to submit a statement on 
his own behalf.

The applicant received an uncharacterized entry-level 
separation, with a separation code of JDA, which denotes 
“Fraudulent Entry into Military Service.”

On 25 Jul 12, the applicant’s case was administratively closed.  

On 10 Oct 12, through counsel, the applicant requested his case 
be reopened.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/SGPS recommends denial of a change to his RE code.  SGPS 
states that the applicant’s separation was done in accordance 
with established policy and administrative procedures.  

SGPS states that a review of the applicant’s records noted he 
reported “feelings of anxiety since his first day at Basic 
Military Training (BMT).”  In addition, it was noted the 
applicant was not motivated to remain in the military and 
declined a waiver review to allow him to continue in BMT.

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his narrative reason for separation and separation code.  
DPSOS states that the documentation on file in the applicant’s 
master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative 
reason for separation and separation code was consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  

DPSOS states that the applicant does not provide proof of an 
error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing to 
warrant a change to his character of service or reason for 
separation. 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel states that the applicant never engaged in fraudulent 
conduct and that his separation based on “Fraudulent Entry” is 
both an error and an injustice.  

Counsel states that the applicant does not dispute his prior 
mental health treatment may have resulted in his rejection from 
military service; however, he adamantly disputes the fact that 
he deliberately concealed this fact.  The applicant disclosed 
the prior treatment to his former recruiter, who in turn 
represents the Air Force.  Therefore, he did not conceal this 
fact or make a deliberate misrepresentation of his mental health 
history.  

Counsel states the advisory opinion incorrectly asserts the 
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 character of 
service or narrative reason for separation.”  

Counsel states that not only did the applicant provide a 
personal statement outlining the errors and injustice in his 
disenrollment, but provided a letter from his mother, who was an 
eyewitness to the former recruiter’s recommendation that he not 
disclose his prior mental health treatment.

Lastly, counsel states that the advisory opinion incorrectly 
characterizes the applicant’s request for relief.  The advisory 
opinion states the applicant feels he should have received a 
“medical discharge.”  Contrary to the advisory opinions 
mischaracterization, the applicant’s request for relief is 
simple and limited in scope.  Specifically, the applicant is 
only seeking to have the narrative reason for separation changed 
to “Secretarial Authority.”

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
G.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALAUTION:

The BCMR Medical Advisor recommends denial of the applicant’s 
request to change his narrative reason for separation to 
“Secretarial Authority.”  The Medical Advisor opines that 
granting “Secretarial Authority,” as the applicant requests, 
removes any public knowledge of the actual circumstances leading 
to his separation; however, the more factual assessment, yet 
less detrimental than the current reason for separation, would 
be “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards.”  

The arguments by the applicant’s counsel, his mother and father 
all reiterate that he was advised by his recruiter not to 
mention his prior use of prescription anti-depressive 
medication.  However, the recruiter is not available to speak in 
his behalf.  

The Medical Advisor states that a review of the correspondence 
consistently fails to address the issue of “omitting information 
pertaining to past mental health history.”  The Medical Advisor 
notes the applicant’s father in his letter acknowledges that his 
son was accompanied by an adult (applicant’s mother).  While the 
applicant is an adult, one would expect that his adult advisor 
would have questioned the omission of a past medical history 
when it clearly states “Have you or have you ever had” any of 
the conditions as reflected on the DD Form 2807-1, specifically, 
item 17 (Nervous trouble of any sort (anxiety or panic 
attacks)).  

The Medical Advisor opines the applicant appears remorseful in a 
handwritten letter to his commander, dated 8 Nov 11.  He 
acknowledges that he clearly denied history of “Nervous trouble 
of any type, received counseling of any type, depression, been 
evaluated or treated for a mental condition, or attempted 
suicide.”  In addition, he denied ever having depression as 
reflected on USMEPCOM Form 40-1-15-E, dated 26 May 11.

The Medical Advisor notes the applicant was well aware of the 
repercussions of dishonesty, one of which includes Fraudulent 
Enlistment as reflected on the USMEPCOM Form 601-23-5-R-E.  
Also, prior to taking the Oath of Enlistment, the applicant was 
made aware of the core values of the military organization he 
was about to join.  

The Medical Advisor opines that there is a plethora of 
culpability on the part of the applicant, his adult advisor and 
possibly the recruiter.  However, the confusion of “prior use of 
prescription anti-depressive medication” and “have you ever had 
a past history,” needs to be weighed against “was there a 
deliberate deception on the part of the applicant.”  While 
failure to disclose prior treatment for a mental impairment 
between the ages 15 and 17 on his Military Entrance Processing 
Station (MEPS) documents can be characterized as an effort to 
fraudulently gain service entry, the Medical Advisor opines that 
other factors, if not taken into account, could pose a potential 
life-long injustice to the applicant, to include the culpability 
and complicity of the adults in authority who improperly coached 
the applicant or clearly underestimated his predisposition for 
manifesting a recurrent impairment of mental functioning upon 
placement in the stressful military environment.  

The complete BCMR Medical Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALAUTION:

Counsel states that the narrative reason for separation 
“Fraudulent Entry” does not accurately reflect his service and 
it is both an error and injustice to stigmatize his future with 
such a negative characterization.  Even the BCMR Medical 
Advisor’s recommendation that he receive a characterization of 
“Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards” suggests some 
failure or deception on the applicant’s behalf. 

Counsel states that the advisory opinion suggests that the 
applicant should have at least disclosed his past mental health 
history, despite the recruiter’s instruction not to disclose any 
information regarding his past use of prescription anti-
depressive medication.  However, common sense dictates that if 
the recruiter directed him not disclose any information 
regarding his prior medication use that he would not have 
disclosed any information regarding any counseling, evaluations, 
or symptoms he experienced necessitating medication.  

Counsel states the BCMR Medical Advisor’s recommendation would 
be a partial victory; however, the applicant requests that his 
service be characterized as an entry-level separation based on 
“Secretarial Authority.”  

Finally, counsel states that in the alternative, the applicant 
would not object to the Board adopting the BCMR Medical 
Advisor’s recommendation.  

Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

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 to warrant 
changing the narrative reason for his separation to “Secretarial 
Authority.”  After careful consideration of the circumstances of 
this case and the evidence provided by the applicant, we are not 
persuaded the applicant’s narrative reason for separation and 
separation code should be changed to Secretarial Authority.  
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the 
Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 
rationale, as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the above 
and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  Nothwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has 
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice to 
warrant changing the narrative reason for his separation to 
“Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards.”  After 
reviewing the evidence of record, it appears the applicant’s 
narrative reason for separation inaccurately reflects the 
circumstances surrounding his discharge.  In this respect, the 
Board majority notes that the BCMR Medical Advisor states that 
the applicant was actually diagnosed with a Depressive Disorder 
and recommends his narrative reason for separation be changed to 
“Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards, along with the 
corresponding separation code of JFW.  Accordingly, the Board 
majority agrees with his recommendation to change his narrative 
reason for separation to reflect the actual circumstances 
surrounding his separation.  Therefore, the Board majority 
recommends his records be corrected to the extent indicated 
below.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was 
discharged on 10 Nov 11, with a narrative reason for separation 
of “Failed Medical/Physical Procurement Standards,” and a 
separation code of “JFW.” 

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-01674 in Executive Session on 6 Aug 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
      Member
			Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to partially grant the 
request, as recommended.  XXXX voted to deny the 
applicant’s appeal but chose not to submit a minority report.  

















The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-01674 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 May 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 11 May 12.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 22 May 12.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 12.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 25 Jul 12, w/atch.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 10 Oct 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 12 Jan 13.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Jan 13.
	Exhibit J.  Letter, Counsel, dated 20 Feb 13.




								
								Panel Chair