RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03764 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His narrative reason for discharge, fraudulent entry into military service, be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had no suicidal thoughts prior to joining the Air Force. He did have personal problems, but prior to his enlistment he did not have any issues. His emotional condition did not appear until after he enlisted. The applicant submits no supporting documentation. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served from 10 – 28 May 2010. The applicant underwent a mental health evaluation on 19 May 2010. He was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood. The diagnosis was incompatible with continued military service. The mental health evaluator recommended the applicant be administratively separated and disqualified him from the Personal Reliability Program (PRP), receiving a security clearance and weapons handling. The applicant acknowledged the findings and conclusions and agreed the assessment was accurate. On 26 May 2010, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to discharge him for fraudulent enlistment. On that same day, the applicant acknowledged his right to counsel and to submit statements on his behalf: he declined both rights. On 27 May 2010, the commander approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be separated in accordance with Air Force Policy Directive 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations and Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Chapter 5, Section C, Administrative Separation of Airmen, with an entry level separation. His narrative reason was listed as fraudulent entry into military service. He served 19 days on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and within the discretion of the discharge authority. The preponderance of evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred during the discharge process. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 March 2011, for review and comment within 30 days (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 timely filed. 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 find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during the discharge process. We find the narrative reason for separation that was issued at the time of the applicant’s separation accurately reflects the circumstances of his separation. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that no error or injustice occurred during the discharge process. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to favorably consider 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 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- 2010-03764 in Executive Session on 28 June 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 10. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 27 Jan 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 11.