ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04073

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED: YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

1.  The following changes be made to her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty:

	a.  Her skill level in Block 11 be changed to a 5-level.  (Administratively Corrected) 

	b.  Her rank be changed to Senior Airman (SrA/E-4).

	c.  Her narrative reason for discharge be changed to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to Military Sexual Trauma (MST).  

2.  She receive the Humanitarian Service Medal (HSM) and the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal (MOVSM). 

3.  Her compensable physical disability rating of 10 percent be changed to a much higher rating. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

1.  She was unjustly denied promotion to SrA despite receiving all 5 ratings on her enlisted performance reports (EPRs), setting records, and volunteering over 800 hours. 

2.  She should not have been discharged.  She was raped in her barracks, and still experiences PTSD from the event.  Then her units handling of the situation caused just as much damage as the person who raped her.  

3.  She volunteered for hundreds of hours at Keesler Air Force Base, MS after Hurricane Katrina but never received the HSM, and even though her command put her in for it, she never received the MOSVM after volunteering over 800 hours in total. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 1 Mar 06.

On 28 Nov 07, the applicant received a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) covering the period 1 Mar 06 through 31 Oct 07, on which she was graded “Does Not Meet” standards in Block 3, Fitness, with the comment “Scored poor on three consecutive tests—improved by 33 points.”  

On 16 Jun 08, the applicant received a non-referral EPR covering the period 1 Nov 07 through 16 Jun 08, with an Overall Rating of “Above Average (4).” 

On 8 Aug 08, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge in the grade of E-3, Airman First Class (A1C), with a narrative reason for discharge of “Disability, Severance Pay,” with a compensable percentage for physical disability of 10 percent, and was credited with 2 years, 5 months, and 8 days of active service.   

On 23 Aug 11, the AFBCMR considered the applicant’s request to remove “Personality Disorder” as the narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; to change her separation to a separation for service connected disability; and, to change her grade at separation from E-3 (A1C) to E-4 (SrA).  The applicant contended she suffered from PTSD as the result of being the victim of rape; she had multiple service connected disabilities for which the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated her disabilities at 40 percent; she never received the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) she deserved; and, she met all the requirements for promotion to E-4.  The Board determined that although she should have had an MEB at the time, it is impractical to provide her an MEB at this point, and directed her records be corrected to reflect she was found unfit for duty with an Anxiety Disorder rated at a disability of 10 percent which was in the line of duty (ILOD) and was the direct result of armed conflict.  However, the Board determined there was insufficient justification to warrant relief for her other identified medical condition, to include PTSD, and noted they would not have been the cause of career termination.  In addition, the Board did not find sufficient evidence of an error or injustice in the applicant separating in the grade of A1C to provide additional relief.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit C.  

On 3 Jan 13, the AFBCMR responded to a request from the applicant to the President of the United States concerning her application, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04073, by notifying her that her request for a reenlistment would require a new DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record. 

On 7 Apr 16, AFPC/DP3ST directed the applicant’s Air Force Specialty Code on her DD214, dated 3 Oct 12, be changed from “1W031, Weather Apprentice” to “1W051, Weather Journeyman.”

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits F, G, and I.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The Humanitarian Service Medal (HSM) may be awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces who, subsequent to 1 Apr 75, distinguished themselves as individuals or as members of United States Military units or ships by meritorious, direct participation in a military act or operation of a humanitarian nature.  The recipient must have been physically present at the designated location, having directly contributed to and influenced the action.  Designated location is the immediate site(s) of the humanitarian operations as defined by the Presidential authorization of Federal assistance in the United States or the Department of the State request for assistance for overseas areas.  When appropriate, the local commander, in his or her recommendation, may propose specific clarification of designated boundaries based on the intent of the Presidential authorization or Department of State request.  Specifically excluded from eligibility are service members or elements remaining at geographically separated locations or who were assigned to the humanitarian operation location but did not make a direct contribution to nor influenced the action.  The following types of military acts or operations may qualify for award of the HSM: significant assistance in the event of national or international disasters, natural or manmade, such as, but not limited to, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, or conflagrations; relief to a famine-stricken area; evacuation of personnel from an area threatened by a hostile force; support or resettlement of refugees or evacuees.  

The Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal (MOVSM) was established on 9 Jan 93 to recognize members of the Armed Forces of the United States and their Reserve components who, subsequent to 31 Dec 92, perform outstanding volunteer community service of a sustained, direct, and consequential nature.  To qualify for award of the MOVSM a service member's volunteer service must meet the following requirements: be to the civilian community, to include the military family community, be significant in nature and produce tangible results, reflect favorably on the Military Service and the Department of Defense, or be of a sustained and direct nature.  While there is no specific time period to qualify for the MOVSM (for example 500 hours of community service within 24 calendar months), approval authorities shall ensure the service to be honored merits the special recognition afforded by this medal.  The MOVSM is intended to recognize exceptional community support over time, not a single act or achievement.  Further, it is intended to honor direct support of community activities.  For the purpose of this award, attending membership meetings or social events of a community service group is not considered qualifying service, while manning a community crisis action telephone line for a sustained period of time is considered qualifying service.  The overall level of volunteer participation and impact of a member's community service is key to determining whether award of the MOVSM is justified.  Service recognized by award of the MOVSM shall be of voluntary nature, not detailed or tasked, nor performed as part of a military mission (for example, a unit project).  The source documentation for verification of the MOVSM is a signed approval memorandum from the delegated approval authority. 

We were unable to locate official documentation in the applicant's record, nor was any provided with this request, to verify the applicant was recommended for or awarded the MOVSM; or, directly participated in a significant military act or operation of a humanitarian nature for award of the HSM.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3SP evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC Enlisted Promotions recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her grade to SrA, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, dated 6 Aug 02, paragraph 2.2, airmen are promoted to the rank of SrA upon meeting minimum requirements in Table 2.1, recommended by the commander in writing, and have either 36-months’ time-in-service (TIS) and 20-months’ time-in-grade (TIG), or 28-months TIG, whichever occurs first.  In accordance with Table 1.1, Rule 22, and note 6, airmen are ineligible for promotion to the grades Amn through SrA if they have a referral EPR as their top report. Airmen in grades AB through A1C meeting TIG/TIS promotion requirements can be promoted no earlier than the close out date of an EPR with a rating of “3” or higher that is not a referral, if otherwise eligible and approved by the commander.  Based on the applicant’s DOR to A1C, she would have been eligible for promotion to SrA effective 1 Jul 08.  Although she met the TIG requirement for promotion, we find no promotion recommendation from her commander.

A complete copy of the AFPC Enlisted Promotions evaluation is at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 27 May 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for discharge to PTSD due to MST or to increase her disability rating, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Following a Commander Directed Evaluation (CDE), the respondent was diagnosed by clinical psychologist as having a personality disorder.  A 27 Sep 10 entry in her medical records indicate the Office of Special Investigation (OSI) Report on her claim of sexual assault states none of the witnesses interviewed had any direct knowledge of the reported Military Sexual Trauma (MST).  In addition, the applicant denied all others symptoms of PTSD other than sleep, and the examiner found her scores for PTSD were “below the cut-off for PTSD.”  The respondent was given a six month probationary period to receive treatment for her diagnosed personality disorder, with the understanding that at any time if she refused treatment, dropped out without her provider’s concurrency, or failed to show progress, she could be administratively separated.  After several instances of intoxication and inappropriate behavior, the applicant admitted she drank alcohol after taking her medication and lied because she was afraid she would get in trouble.  The psychologist recommended she be administratively discharged with a Personality Disorder.  

It is very clear from the applicant’s history, she has experienced severe abuse prior to her military experience.  The applicant reported she was abused when she was six years of age but did not report it and she was raped over a period of weeks at the age of 13 by a member of the clergy, which resulted in her having an abortion at age 14.  She did receive treatment for this event but did not report this at the time she enlisted.  This action constitutes a Fraudulent Enlistment.  The psychologist at the time of the CDE gave the applicant a diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder and a co-morbid diagnosis of Personality Disorder.  The psychologist felt she might respond to treatment and recommended a six month trial of therapy.  It is clear from the chronology of events that followed the applicant failed to comply with the conditions of her probation.  The applicant was evaluated at the time of Discharge for PTSD, again in 2010 and again in 2014.  In all three instances the applicant’s condition was not diagnosed as PTSD.  The reports are relatively consistent in saying she had an Anxiety Disorder and a Personality Disorder.  Considering her history this is an expected outcome.  She was also very functional at the time of her discharge.  As noted she went on to get her Bachelor’s degree in 2010 after her discharge.  The applicant also went on to do some Master’s Degree courses.  This psychiatric advisor opines the psychologist was right to say there was no definitive evidence of MST experienced in the military, but rather her discharge from the military was for her a traumatic experience, and she is still dealing with the severe abuse of her childhood which remains unresolved.  At this point, her military experience had a minimal contribution to any aggravation of any pre-existing condition(s) and, thus, the 10% severance satisfies that contribution.  There is insufficient evidence to warrant approval of the desired changes. 

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor evaluation is at Exhibit I.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 Oct 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit J).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 an 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 offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and the AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2010-04073 in Executive Session on 15 Dec 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04073 was considered:

	Exhibit C.  Original ROP, dated 14 Sep 11, w/atch. 
Exhibit D.  Form 149, dated 30 Jul 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 5 Apr 16.
	Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP1SP, dated 4 May 16.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 16.
Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 18 Oct 16.
	Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Oct 16.  

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.