Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00657
Original file (BC 2014 00657.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00657
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His uncharacterized discharge be changed to honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He entered the United States Air Force to serve his country and 
was disqualified during his initial training due to sleepwalking. 

He did not recognize the uncharacterized status was unacceptable 
for employment purposes until now and asks for the Board’s 
understanding for the delay in requesting a change.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 Jan 11, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air 
Force.

On 10 Jan 11, he was referred to the Behavioral Analysis Service 
(BAS) and endorsed a disqualifying history of sleepwalking 
compounded by thoughts pertaining to self-harm that emerged during 
training.  He self-reported sleepwalking once a week since 
childhood and indicated he was not asked about sleepwalking by his 
recruiter or at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS).  
He also indicated he thought about suicide by cutting his wrist 
during training but denied any current thoughts of suicide. The 
Staff Psychology Provider diagnosed him with Axis I: Adjustment 
Disorder with Depressed Mood; EPTS Sleepwalking. Because of these 
diagnoses, the applicant did not meet retention standards for 
continued military service.  He acknowledged the findings and 
conclusions as accurate.  

On 13 Jan 11, he provided a written statement indicating he was 
never asked about sleep walking at the MEPS or by the recruiter.  
He also indicated he was guessing at the number of times he did so 
and could recall only one certain incident.  He also stated 
everyone in his family sleep walks and that he would never lie to 
the military.   

On 18 Jan 11, his commander notified him he was recommending he be 
discharged under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Military 
Retirements and Separations, and AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, for Fraudulent Enlistment.  The specific 
reason for this action is the applicant failed to document his 
history of sleepwalking on the DD Form 2807-2, Medical Prescreen 
of Medical History Report.  Had he documented it, the Air Force 
would have rendered him ineligible for enlistment.  He 
acknowledged receipt of the notification memorandum that day, 
waiving his rights to counsel and declining to submit statements 
on his own behalf.   

On 21 Jan 11, the applicant received an uncharacterized discharge.  
He was credited with 18 days of active service.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice. The Staff Psychology Provider memorandum 
dated 10 Jan 11 shows he self-reported a history of sleepwalking 
and his DD Form 2807-2 is clearly marked “no” in response to the 
question on sleepwalking.  Therefore, fraudulent enlistment is the 
correct basis for the discharge.  The Separation Program 
Designator (SPD) code and narrative reason for separation are 
correct and in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) and Air 
Force Instructions.  Airmen are given an entry-level 
separation/uncharacterized service characterization when 
separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active 
service.  The DoD determined if a member served less than 180 days 
of continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and 
the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, the 
entry level separation and uncharacterized character of service 
are correct and IAW DoD and Air Force instructions. 

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.   

AETC/SGPS recommends denial indicating the separation was done in 
accordance with established policy and administrative procedures.  
Review of the applicant’s records and medical notes show he 
admitted to sleepwalking at least once a week since childhood and 
checked “No” on his DD Form 2807-2 section 2, question 4, 
regarding sleepwalking.  Since he knew he had the condition and 
still checked “no” on his history form, they do not support his 
request.  

The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit D.  


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation(s) were forwarded to the 
applicant on 25 Apr 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


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.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 
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.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend 
granting the relief sought in this application.

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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00657 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 31 Mar 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AETC/SGPS, dated 19 Mar 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 14.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05831

    Original file (BC 2013 05831.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05831 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for separation of “Discharge Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service” be changed to “Erroneous Enlistment.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has not taken the disqualifying...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02108

    Original file (BC 2014 02108.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, the narrative reason for separation and character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. Therefore, his uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions The complete DPSOR evaluation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02476

    Original file (BC 2014 02476.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 6 Dec 12, the case was found to be legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation, directing the applicant be issued an entry-level separation with a basis for discharge of fraudulent entry. The applicant’s commander notified him on 5 Dec 12 he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force for entry-level separation (Fraudulent Entry) for deliberately concealing a prior service medical condition. The following documentary evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00225

    Original file (BC-2013-00225.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00225 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation of “Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service (Medical)” be corrected. On 5 October 2012, the applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending her for discharge from the Air Force under the provisions...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01153

    Original file (BC 2014 01153.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He joined the Air Force right out of High School to help serve his country. After following a doctor’s recommendation to be tested for asthma, he was shocked to be diagnosed with asthma. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02622

    Original file (BC-2011-02622.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Block 28 – Narrative Reason for Separation be changed from “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service” to read “Erroneous Enlistment” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The applicant’s eight-page statement is summarized as follows: 1) During the first meeting with her Air Force recruiter, the applicant disclosed her bee and penicillin allergies. Her recruiter instructed her that she did not need to disclose this information when she...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00152

    Original file (BC-2013-00152.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00152 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His reentry (RE) code of “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service) be changed in order for him to reenter the military. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00785

    Original file (BC 2014 00785.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/SGPS recommends denial indicating that based on the documentation on file and subsequent civilian examination the recommendation for separation was done in accordance with established policy and procedures. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04878

    Original file (BC-2012-04878.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Had the Air Force been aware of his condition at the time of enlistment, he would not have been allowed to enter military service. The applicant has not provided any evidence or identified any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing to warrant to a change of 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02280

    Original file (BC-2010-02280.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Airmen are given entry-level separation with uncharacterized service when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant corrective action.