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