RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00320

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her type of separation reflect release from active duty rather than entry level separation.

2.  Her character of service reflect honorable rather than uncharacterized.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was only following the advice of a master sergeant at the recruiting station who instructed her to keep her mouth shut concerning her condition and to not take any medications related to her condition so they would not show on a urinalysis test that she would be administered in Basic Military Training (BMT).

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 7 February 2001.

The applicant’s commander notified her on 22 February 2001, she was recommending the applicant for discharge from the Air Force for Fraudulent Entry due to the fact that the applicant failed to indicate she had a history of mental health treatment.  The type of discharge would be described as an entry level separation.

On 22 February 2001, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of her right to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in her own behalf.

On 23 February 2001, the assistant staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge.  

On 26 February 2001, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation.

On 1 March 2001, the applicant was furnished an entry level separation and was credited with no active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  

The applicant’s character of service is correct on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  Airman are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days continuous active service.  The Department of Defense (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.

The applicant contends that she was instructed by her recruiter to keep quiet about her condition.  Our office cannot confirm or deny these allegations and can only address what we find in the master of personnel record.  In the record, there is as hand-written statement signed by the applicant admitting to intentionally concealing her mental health information.  There is no mention by the applicant in her statement that her recruiter encouraged her to be deceptive.  Based on her admission of concealing her medical status, the SPD code and narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on the applicant’s DD Form 214. 

It has been 14 years since the applicant was discharged from the Air Force and the applicant did not provide a valid reason why she didn’t file a petition within three years of the alleged error or injustice.  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.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Medical Advisor recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  

The applicant was diagnosed with a mental disorder during her military service.  There is no controversy over the accuracy of the diagnosis.  This issue at hand is the fact that the applicant elected for withhold disclosure of treatment for a mental condition prior to entering military service; albeit fueled in part by her recruiter and her personal convictions.

Noting that the applicant’s uncharacterized service was consistent with existing policy, the Medical Advisor must also conclude that the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change in reason for separation; albeit plausible she was misguided by her recruiter.  It is also this reviewer’s opinion that a review by a psychologist or psychiatrist, under Section 521 of National Defense Authorization Act of 2015, would have no relevance in the applicant’s appeal or the application of the policies leading to the discharge.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Advisor’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that she followed the orders of her recruiter.  Because she was naïve she is being blamed for withholding information and she believes she is being used to categorize her assigned discharge status while the Air Force is not accepting any responsibility for the actions of the recruiter.  The recruiter should have told her that if she could not be granted a waiver that she would be considered unfit for military service.  The recruiter used her [the applicant’s] desire and reasons for wanting to serve her country to pad statistics for recruiting purposes.  This has put shame and discredit upon her and her family.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely; however, it is in the interest of justice to waive 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 OPR’s and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.  We find no fault with the discharge process and the commander’s decision to discharge the applicant.  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 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00320 in Executive Session on 26 July 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00320 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 January 2015, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 15 April 2015.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Medical Advisor,
  dated 25 May 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 May 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 June 2016