RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05472 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His character of service be changed from “uncharacterized” to “honorable.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was denied a top secret clearance because of his student loan debt and was labeled an “espionage risk.” He was not a risk for espionage. Despite having the highest average in his technical school class, he was unjustly discharged from the Air Force. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because the characterization is unfair. He was a good airman who was denied the opportunity to serve his country. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 August 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. In a letter dated 8 January 1992, the Chief, Security Police recommended the cancellation of the applicant’s processing for a top secret security clearance and denial of access to classified material due to his financial irresponsibility. On 16 January 1992, via AF Form 286a, Notification of Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) Permanent Decertification Action, the applicant was permanently decertified from PRP due to financial irresponsibility. On 22 January 1992, via ATC Form 125A, Record of Administrative Training Action, the applicant was disenrolled from the Apprentice Missile Maintenance Specialist (ICBM) course because of “Prerequisite Deficiency.” In a letter dated 14 February 1992, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for unsatisfactory performance. The specific reasons for this action were he failed to make payments to his creditors, he was permanently decertified from the PRP and eliminated from the ICBM course for perquisite deficiency. In a letter dated 14 February 1992, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, consulted with legal counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his behalf. In a letter dated 20 February 1992, the discharge authority concurred with the commander’s recommendation and directed immediate separation. On 21 February 1992, the applicant received an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. The narrative reason for separation is “Entry level Performance.” He served on active duty for six months and one day. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. Airmen are given entry-level separation/ uncharacterized service characterizations when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service. The Department of Defense (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. In accordance with DoD and Air Force instructions, the applicant must be separated with an entry level separation since he was only on active duty for 178 days when the discharge action was initiated. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 17 February 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion 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. 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 in Executive Session on 21 October 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2013- 05472 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 November 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR Advisory, dated 23 January 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 February 2014.