RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04643 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to a medical discharge. ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In Feb 1983, he was the victim of a Military Sexual Trauma (MST), which ultimately required hospitalization for surgical intervention to treat severe trauma to his rectum, after which he developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which then resulted in turning to drugs and alcohol to drown out his pain, shame, and embarrassment. He made a false report to emergency medical personnel at a Air Force Hospital regarding a boil on his buttocks, which he reported was a recurring medical problem since childhood. He was too embarrassed and ashamed and failed to reveal that he had been raped. The Air Force was his life and he has suffered in silence for many years. He is now 100 percent permanently and totally disabled as determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and is still being treated for this MST at a DVA Hospital. In support of his request, the applicant provides a four page supplemental memorandum describing details of the circumstances leading to and following his sexual trauma, copies of statements from his physicians, his medical records and other documents in support of his request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ______________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 20 Dec 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years. On 23 Jun 1983 his commander recommended his discharge from the Air Force for a pattern of misconduct under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The specific reasons for this action were: On 15 Sep 1982 he was speeding on base. On 8 Oct 1982 he destroyed a pane of glass valued at 12 pounds. On 2 and 9 Oct 1982 he wrote checks which were returned due to insufficient funds. On 9 Oct 1982 he struck an individual in the face. On 28 Oct 1982 he again wrote a check which was returned due to insufficient funds. On 1 Nov 1982 he failed to appear for a mandatory roll call formation. On 2 Nov 1982 he was late for duty. On 4 Nov 1982 he failed to show any proficiency during weapons load training recertification. On 5 Nov 1982 he was found sleeping on duty and wearing a watch. On 29 Nov 1982 he reported late for duty. On 2 and 3 Dec 1982 he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. On 3 Jan 1983 he was argumentative, used obscene language, and failed to obey a lawful order. On 15 Feb 1983 he wrongfully possessed some quantity of marijuana. On 2 Mar 1983 he received an Article 15 and was reduced in rank to airman first class (A1C, E-3). On 7 Apr 1983 he failed to report for duty as directed. On 21 Apr 1983 he was delinquent in making a payment under the Deferred Payment Program. On 25 Apr 1983 he failed to report for duty at the appointed time and place. On 29 Apr 1983 he failed a scheduled dormitory inspection. On 12 May 1983 he failed to report for duty at the appointed time and place. On 17 May 1983 he again failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. On 20 May he received an Article 15 and was reduced in rank to Airman (Amn, E-2). On 29 Jun 1983, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the recommendation for discharge and provided a statement for the commander’s consideration. On 29 Jun 1983, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient. On 12 Jul 1983, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of Amn. He served 3 years, 6 months, and 23 days of total active service. ______________________________________________________________ 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. 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 in the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the discharge was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. In this respect we note that although the applicant required surgical treatment during his military service, the evidence does not reflect the condition for which he was treated was permanently disabling or prevented him from reasonably performing his military duties. Moreover, even if the applicant was diagnosed with a disqualifying medical condition prior to his separation, he would have concurrently been the subject of a "dual action" review [medical and administrative] by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council which would have still rendered the applicant vulnerable for an administrative discharge; considering the drug abuse and multiple other infractions prior to the incident that reportedly caused a downward spiral of his Air Force career. The Board empathizes with the ordeal reportedly experienced by the applicant during his military service and is very pleased to see he is receiving the necessary care and compensation by the National Institutes of Health and the DVA since leaving military service. However, in view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. ______________________________________________________________ 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 5 Sep 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to BC-2011-04643 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Nov 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.