RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02097
INDEX CODE:  110.03
   APPLICANT			COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

   					HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment (RE) Code of “2Q” be changed to allow her to return to military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During basic training her career was tainted due to acts of sexual harassment and physical violence that were perpetrated upon her through no fault of her own.

In support of her application, she submits a personal statement, medical assessment reports, copy of DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States, letters to her Senator and Congresswoman, copies of Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) findings, and other documents relating to her service and the issues cited in her contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 January 2001 and, while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged on 28 March 2001 with an Entry Level Separation because of a disability which existed prior to service.  She was credited with 1 month and 12 days of total active federal military service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, and E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant was in her 5th week of basic training when her behavior was noted to take a sudden change and she became withdrawn and isolated from her fellow recruits.  She was admitted to the hospital on February 19, 2001, 1 month after entering active duty, and remained there until her discharge on March 28th, being found to exhibit symptoms compatible with the diagnosis for which she was discharged.  She contends that her behavior was prompted by a sexual incident perpetrated by fellow recruits "at 2400 hours" on February 19th whereby she was rudely awakened and taken to "Command Quarters" and harassed and demeaned by several females and training instructors.  According to her, when she began screaming, an ambulance was called and she was taken to the hospital while continuing to be harassed and beaten on her breasts by the medical attendant.  The medical report details an entirely different account of events, noting her gradual withdrawal over some 10 days and appearing "dazed" and unresponsive while acting as dorm guard when her Technical Instructor tried to enter on the day she was admitted to the hospital.  This was followed by the applicant reportedly hitting her flightmates and yelling, "Let me go. It wasn't my fault." Upon arrival at the emergency room she remained uncooperative and was found delusional and paranoid in her thinking.  Her ensuing hospitalization confirmed the impression of an acute psychotic event and various medications were used to provide relief from her initial GAF of 35 to 80 at the time of her discharge some 5 1/2 weeks later.  Upon her return to her home she initiated a formal complaint which was investigated and concluded that no sexual harassment such as she believes happened actually occurred. These alleged events were not disclosed at the time of hospitalization, the applicant confiding in no one about any such occurrence.

The Medical Consultant indicates there is no evidence found in the personnel or medical records that substantiates the allegation posed by the applicant, nor does she provide any corroborating evidence to support her claim.  Indeed, the investigation that was completed based on her allegation failed to uncover any evidence that this event had occurred. Rather, it would appear that the distortion of reality occasioned by the deterioration of her mental status led to an erroneous conclusion as to events surrounding her hospitalization.  Without some means of substantiating her claim, the Medical Consultant is not inclined to support favorable consideration of her request.  Records indicate she received further counseling through local mental health services upon her return home, but lack details of such intervention over the past 3 months.  Her current status is, therefore, unknown, although an appeal to the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability consideration was noted to have been denied in their decision dated May 23, 2001.  Therefore, the Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the record is warranted and the application should be denied (Exhibit C).

The Separations Branch indicates that on 23 March 2001, the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force determine that the member was physically unfit for continued military service due to a physical disability which existed prior to her military service and directed a discharge without disability benefits.  Based on the documentation in the file, DPPRSP believes the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and the discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  DPPRSP states the only error identified within the member’s discharge is the date she entered on active service on the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and this error has been corrected using the DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (Exhibit D).

The Director of Personnel Programs Management conducted a review of the applicant’s case file and indicated that the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2Q, “Personnel medically retired or discharged” is correct  (Exhibit E) 
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant and counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and responded separately. The applicant rebutted the advisories and iterated previously submitted statements.  Counsel provided copies of a letter sent to the President Bush and one submitted by the applicant’s mother.  The applicant and counsel’s complete rebuttals, with attachments, are at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice warranting changes to the applicant’s reenlistment code.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case to include her assertions that her career was tainted due to acts of sexual harassment and physical violence; however, we were unable to conclude from the records any statements that corroborate her allegations.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 8 January 2002 and 17 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		Panel Chair
		Member
		Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 01, with attachments.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records and Sexual    Harassment Investigation (Withdrawn).
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Sep 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 4 Oct 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 31 Oct 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Nov 01.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Response, dated 12 Dec 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Dr,  dated 4 Jan 02.