RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00643
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reason for discharge, Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, be changed to a medical discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reason for separation should be medical.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of her medical appointments prior to her entry into the Air Force and a 16 October 2002 statement by physician.  (Examiner’s Note:  These documents were included in her discharge case file.)

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 June 2002.

On 24 October 2002, the commander notified the applicant that he was recommending an entry-level discharge for fraudulent enlistment.  Reason for the action was applicant gained enlistment through deliberate concealment of a mental health condition.  When the applicant completed her Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, question 21, “In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a mental health professional (psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, etc.), or have you consulted with another health care provider about mental health-related conditions?”  she answered, “NO.”  She self-referred to the mental health clinic in September 2002 with symptoms of depressed mood and expressed a desire to leave the Air Force.  At that time, she disclosed her history of depression requiring treatment with antidepressant medication and care by mental health professionals.  She had discontinued her medications just prior to entering her enlistment.  Applicant waived her right to consult with counsel and did not submit any statements in her behalf.  The case was reviewed by the base legal services and found to be legally sufficient to support discharge for fraudulent entry.  On 1 November 2002, the Discharge Authority directed an uncharacterized, entry-level discharge.

On 5 November 2002, the applicant, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen (fraudulent enlistment), and received an uncharacterized discharge.  She did not receive any credit for active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the applicant concealed her history of depression treated with an anti-depressant medication within 12 months of enlisting.  She experienced recurrent depressive symptoms diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder after 3 months on active duty and revealed her pre-service medical history.  As a result of her concealing her disqualifying medical history for the purpose of gaining entry into the service she was administratively discharged for fraudulent entry into military service with an entry-level separation and uncharacterized service.

The applicant’s history of depression is disqualifying for entry into the Air Force (AFI 48-123A3.21 Mood Disorders.  The causes for rejection are symptoms, diagnosis or history of a major mood disorder requiring maintenance treatment or hospitalization).  The applicant told her physician in February 2002 that she had to be off medication for a year before attempting to medically qualify for enlistment but instead applied 3 months later and concealed her recent mental health history.

Fraudulent entry is one involving deliberate deception on the part of the member.  An airman may be discharged for fraudulent entry based on the procurement of a fraudulent enlistment or period of military service through any deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment that if known at the time of enlistment or entry into a period of military service, might have resulted in rejection.  The fraud may occur at any time in the enlistment process.

The BCMR Medical Consultant stated that action and disposition in this case are proper and equitable reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.  Therefore, the BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS states that they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.

Airmen are given 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 continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, her uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions.  An entry-level/uncharacterized separation should not be confused with other types of separations.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 3 June 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error or that she has been the victim of an injustice.  However, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those merits.  Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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, BC-2003-00643, in Executive Session on 31 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 9 May 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 May 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 03.

					
					Acting Panel Chair