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 medications on record since he was 8 years old and the medications were only taken for several months. After 12 years, he did not remember the medications he had taken. The reason for discharge should be changed from fraudulent enlistment to erroneous enlistment due to how early in life he was prescribed the medications. In support of his request, the applicant provides extract copies from his medical records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 12 Mar 13, the applicant entered active duty. On 21 Jun 13, the applicant’s commander notified him of his decision to recommend his discharge from the Air Force In Accordance With (IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Chapter 5, Section 5C, Defective Enlistments, for fraudulent enlistment. The specific reason for this action was a history of mental health treatment that was not documented on his DD Form 2807-1 and DD Form 2807-2, Report of Medical Examination. Had the Air Force known this information, it could have rendered him ineligible to enlist in the Air Force. On 26 Jun 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, consulted counsel and submitted statements in his own behalf. On 1 Jul 13, the staff judge advocate found the discharge recommendation legally sufficient. On 1 Jul 13, the discharge authority approved the recommendation. On 3 Jul 13, he received an entry level separation with an uncharacterized character of service. His narrative reason for separation is “Discharge Fraudulent Entry Into Military Service.” On 28 Apr 14, SAF/MRBR provided the applicant with an opportunity to provide post-service information (Exhibit G). In response, the applicant submitted a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report, dated 4 Aug 14, which shows the applicant has no prior arrest data at the FBI (Exhibit H). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS recommends denial. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s records, SGPS finds the separation was done IAW established policy and administrative procedures. His diagnoses regardless when made is disqualifying for military service. Medical waivers will be denied. A review of the records provided and medical notes from Wilford Hall Medical Center (WHMC) show he was diagnosed with the condition at age 10-11 and he states he was only treated with medications for a few months. This was not disclosed at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) because he felt the potential for disqualification was too high. On 29 May 13, he was seen in the Behavioral Analysis Service (BAS) where the diagnoses of bipolar was made. Based on his diagnoses he subsequently was processed for an entry level separation. The complete SGPS evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. On 17 and 24 Jun 13, the applicant completed and signed statements admitting to the fact that he failed to disclose medications he was previously prescribed prior to entering the military for an apparent mental health condition (bipolar disorder). These admissions show a pre- existing condition that the applicant failed to disclose prior to entering the military. Therefore, DPSOR concurs that the fraudulent enlistment was the correct basis for the discharge. Further, airman are given entry level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of 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, his uncharacterized character of service is correct and IAW Department of Defense (DOD) and Air Force instructions. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He has made statements that do not help his position. While speaking to the counselor at the BAS, he stated an incorrect age range and the reason for not disclosing the disqualifying factors that led to his separation. When he realized the error, he had already attended his final BAS appointment and it was too late to correct his initial statements. His recruiter had advised him to keep quiet as it was early in his life that he had been prescribed the medications and because of the length of time between when he was prescribed the medications and his enlistment. As for his statements regarding a possible bipolar diagnosis, it was nothing more than an assumption on his part. He had typed up a detailed rebuttal to his discharge recommendation but his Area Defense Counsel (ADC) convinced him to submit a vague version that he now sees was meant to make him look guilty rather than aid in his defense. The reason he was on the disqualifying medications for such a short time and has never taken anything similar since 2001 is that he never had the conditions that required the medications. As for the signed statements admitting that he had not disclosed the information, the context of the charge implies that he had full knowledge and admitted to withholding information. To this, he requests that his age when prescribed the medications be taken into account and the probability of not knowing the names or the intended treatment of the medications. He never needed any of the disqualifying medications and was only taking each for a span of months before being taken off them. He is not, nor has ever been bipolar. He lacked disciplinary structure which led to his childhood behavioral problems. His mother is bipolar and she did not know how to deal with his behavioral issues. He wants to serve in the military in any position he can and asks to be given that chance. He wants to be a part of something larger than himself and wants to do something for his country that genuinely matters. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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. While the applicant's assertions in response to the Air Force evaluations are noted, he has not provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR). Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the AF OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any of 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 Docket Number BC-2013-05831 in Executive Session 9 Oct 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2013-05831 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 18 and 30 Dec 13, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 27 Jan 14. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 31 Jan 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Feb 14. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant,undated. Exhibit G. Information Bulletin, w/atch. Exhibit H. FBI report, dated 4 Aug 14.