RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-02492 INDEX CODE:	112.10
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His character of discharge be changed from uncharacterized to general (under honorable conditions).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His characterization of service is affecting his dream of becoming a firefighter. Upon entry into the Air Force, he notified his recruiter that he had suffered frequent headaches as a child. The recruiter told him that since he had not been diagnosed with a medical problem, it was not important. However, three months into training he was experiencing frequent headaches and was subsequently diagnosed with migraines. He believes that if the Air Force had been properly notified of his history of headaches, his enlistment would not have occurred. He joined the Air Force solely for patriotic reasons.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, and copies of medical documents from his civilian doctor.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 19 January 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 21 in the grade of airman basic (E- 1). A Report of Medical Assessment, dated 3 May 2000, indicates the applicant was being treated with medication for migraines.

According to the Air Force office of primary responsibility, the applicant was notified on 10 May 2000, of his commander’s recommendation that he receive an entry-level separation (Fraudulent Entry) for intentionally concealing a

prior service medical condition, which if revealed, could have resulted in rejection of his enlistment. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was advised of his right to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in his own behalf. The  discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be separated with an uncharacterized entry-level separation.

On 18 May 2000, the applicant was released from active duty with an uncharacterized character of service, and a narrative reason for separation of “Erroneous Entry.” He served four months on active duty.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his characterization of discharge to general (under honorable conditions). DPSOS states they find the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the discretion of the discharge authority. However, they do find the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty, was improperly completed and unless otherwise directed by the Board, they recommend his narrative reason  for separation be changed to reflect “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service” and his separation program designator code be changed to reflect “JDA.”

The DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7  November 2003 for review and response (Exhibit D). 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 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.   The
1.	
applicant did not provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the discharge case was erroneous, his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority. The character of discharge which was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation appears to accurately reflect the circumstances of his separation and we do not find it to be in error or unjust. While we note the comments from the Air Force office of primary responsibility that his narrative reason for separation should be corrected to “Fraudulent Entry” versus “Erroneous Entry,” we feel that the potential stigma associated with the word “fraudulent” could be more a detriment to the applicant; thereby, we recommend keeping it as it is. Nevertheless, 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 in Executive Session on 3 March 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02492:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 4 Nov 08.
Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 09.