RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00221

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His entry-level separation with uncharacterized service be 
upgraded to an honorable or general discharge.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation was inequitable and improper because it was based 
on a false statement and a conviction he had prior to entering 
active service for which he had obtained a waiver.  His current 
characterization is preventing him from obtaining employment 
with the government.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 Jan 98, the applicant commenced his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force.

On 20 Feb 98, the applicant was evaluated by Behavioral Analysis 
Service (BAS) for stress.  The evaluation noted the applicant 
was having difficulty adjusting, with feelings of increased 
stress and depression.  The applicant reported a history of 
antisocial behavior as a teenager.  The mental health provider 
indicated the applicant’s difficulties appeared to be related to 
adjustment rather than a mental health problem.  It was further 
noted the applicant received a waiver for an arrest he had prior 
to entering military service.  Mental Health recommended the 
applicant be returned to duty, and noted his ability to function 
in the military was significantly impaired.

On 25 Mar 98, the applicant was again seen by BAS for an angry 
attitude towards BMT and feelings of wanting to “go off” on his 
military training instructor (MTI).  The applicant felt his MTI 
was attempting to provoke him and threatened to assault him.  He 
believes she is out to get him and would do anything to get rid 
of him.  The applicant expressed he was very angry about the 
situation and that he would not physically assault anyone.  The 
mental health provider recommended the applicant be returned to 
duty, but noted the applicant had an attitude problem and 
performance problem, not a mental disorder.  He further noted if 
the applicant did not adjust his attitude he would more than 
likely get into trouble down the road.  

On 30 Mar 98, the applicant’s commander notified him that she 
was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for 
unsatisfactory entry level performance or conduct.  The specific 
reasons for the discharge action were the applicant’s failure to 
adapt to the military environment, failure to make satisfactory 
progress in a required training program, reluctance to make the 
effort necessary to meet Air Force standards of conduct and duty 
performance, and lack of self-discipline.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge action and, 
after consulting with legal counsel, waived his right to submit 
a statement in response to the action.

On 2 Apr 98, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
furnished an entry-level separation with uncharacterized 
service.  On 3 Apr 98, he was furnished an entry-level 
separation with uncharacterized service and credited with two 
months and five days of total active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  The documentation in the applicant’s 
master personnel records indicates 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 has not provided any 
evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in 
the discharge processing to warrant changing his discharge, 
service characterization, or the narrative for separation.  
Airmen are given an entry-level separation with uncharacterized 
service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of 
continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (DoD) 
determined it would be unfair to the member or the service to 
characterize a member’s limited service when separation is 
initiated within the first 180 days of active service.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

When his commander approached him about the forged checks his 
first instinct was to lie, but he chose to tell the truth about 
the situation.

He completed all assigned tasks in a timely manner.  His 
physical training record will show he improved and excelled in 
physical training.  Although he was selfish and irresponsible, 
he joined the Air Force for the values they could teach him. 

AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, states 
counseling and rehabilitation efforts are necessary for airmen 
new to the service.  If unsatisfactory performance or conduct is 
the sole reason for discharge, the airman should not be 
separated until there have been efforts to help him meet Air 
Force standards.  He was not provided an opportunity to overcome 
his deficiencies as required the governing instruction. 

A complete copy of the applicant’s 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 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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, 
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 the applicant has not been the victim 
of an error or injustice.  Based on the available evidence of 
record, it appears the applicant’s entry-level separation was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the governing 
instructions and within the commander’s discretionary authority.  
The applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us 
to believe his entry-level separation with uncharacterized 
service was improper or contrary to the provisions of the 
governing directive.  We note the applicant’s argument that he 
was not provided appropriate counseling or rehabilitation to 
give him an opportunity to meet standards; however, in view of 
the fact that his record contains documentation that indicates 
that he was provided assistance through the Behavioral Analysis 
Service (BAS), we are not persuaded that he was denied rights to 
which he was entitled or that his discharge was not appropriate 
to the circumstances.  Therefore, absent evidence the applicant 
was not afforded rights to which he was entitled, there was an 
abuse of discretionary authority, or appropriate standards were 
not applied, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
requested relief.

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 issues 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 material 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-2013-00221 in Executive Session on 31 Oct 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 26 Mar 13.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair