RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04483 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a medical discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She has been awarded compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for medical conditions (post-traumatic-stress- disorder (PTSD), migraines and back problems) due to an in- service trauma which led to her discharge from the Air Force. In support of the applicant’s appeal, she provides a personal statement, DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, and a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 October 1996. The applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to recommend her discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208 - Unsatisfactory Performance. The specific reasons follow: a. The applicant did between 11 June 1997 and 20 August 1997 receive numerous Letters of Counseling (LOCs) for dereliction in the performance of her duties, insubordination to a superior, repeated and numerous errors in her work product, and for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty. b. The applicant did on 18 August 1997 treat her supervisor with disrespect in language and deportment - for this misconduct she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). c. On 23 July 1997, the applicant received a Memorandum for Record (MFR) which indicated while in training at Kessler AFB, the applicant’s primary instructor and supervisor were reluctant to send the applicant to the field because she failed almost every task at least once, many twice, and had some trouble with authority during her training. d. AF Forms 623a, On-The-Job-Training Record, reflect the applicant did not progress on the job as anticipated, she did not perform at the 3-skill level, and she was derelict in the performance of her duties. She was advised of her rights in this matter and after consulting with counsel the applicant elected to submit a statement on her own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant was discharged on 14 October 1997. She served 11 months and 22 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the processing of her separation. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the applicant’s discharge to include her narrative reason for separation was appropriately administered and was properly reflected on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states the applicant contends that certain medical conditions caused her poor duty performance. However, no evidence is presented, e.g., medical narratives, episodes of care, psychiatric evaluations, and pro-file restrictions imposed of a sufficient level, e.g., “S4T” profile, or a duration to indicate the applicant was unable to perform the duties of her office; grade, rank, and rating to justify a Medical Evaluation Board; nor which rendered her non-worldwide qualified due to any medical conditions or not expected to resolve within 365 days. There is a suggestion in an email transmission that the applicant may have experienced some emotional trauma following the suicide of her training partner. No medical documentation is presented to show this interfered with her military service or caused her poor duty performance. The Medical Consultant is empathetic with the applicant’s desire for an upgrade of discharge to honorable, noting the preponderance of her disciplinary infractions were performance, and not misconduct, related. Absent the applicant’s misconduct, an honorable character of service would be appropriate. The discharge authority and the legal reviewer were completely aware of and likely considered this option, but found the general discharge legally sufficient. Thus, to supplant the discharge characterization with an honorable would be based solely on a difference of opinion or interpretation of the weight of evidence [performance and misconduct] versus legal sufficiency alone. Consequently, the Medical Consultant opines the burden of proof of error or injustice has not been met for the desired changes of the record. The board may yet decide upon an upgrade of discharge based upon clemency or if an interpretation of the weight of evidence suggests that the general service characterization was too harsh. The applicant is advised that she has not exhausted all administrative remedies, as she remains eligible for presenting her case before a Discharge Review Board, via administrative review or personal appearance, for which she may present additional facts and evidence, with legal counsel and witnesses to support her contentions. The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 13 November 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 15 days (Exhibit E). 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 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 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 opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04483 in Executive Session on 27 November 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04483 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 February 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 1 March 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 November 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 November 2012.