RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05506 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge [sic] be upgraded. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She should have had a psych evaluation before her discharge. She was sexually assaulted which resulted in her bipolar disorder, severe depression, personality disorder and paranoid features. Her discharge is not dishonorable, it should have been UOTHC. The applicant provides no rationale as to why her failure to timely file should be waived in the interest of justice. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, letters from friends and former military members who were aware of and assisted her during the assault. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 27 Jul 90, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years. On 22 Jul 92, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial at Tinker Air Force Base, OK. A military judge found the applicant guilty, in accordance with her pleas, of larceny, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); uttering a forged check (6 specifications), in violation of Article 123, UCMJ; and dishonorable failure to maintain sufficient funds (6 specifications), in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. The military judge sentenced the applicant to be discharged with a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), to be confined for eight months, to forfeit $500 pay per month for eight months, and to be reduced from the grade of airman (E-2) to the grade of airman basic (E-1). On 14 Sep 92, the convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. On 22 Oct 92, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the findings and sentence were correct in law and fact. On 22 Feb 93, the Court of Military Appeals denied the applicant's petition for grant of review. On 30 Mar 93, the convening authority ordered the applicant's BCD be executed. On 12 Apr 93, the applicant was discharged by reason of conviction by court-martial (other than desertion), with a BCD. She was credited with 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of active duty service, excluding lost time from 22 Jul 92 thru 6 Dec 92 and 120 days of excess leave. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The applicant argues that she should have received a psychological evaluation before she was discharged. She provides information regarding a sexual assault which occurred prior to her discharge. This resulted in her developing bipolar disorder, severe depression, and personality disorder. The applicant would have had the opportunity to bring up evidence of her sexual assault to the military judge at the court-martial as a mitigating factor to be considered in sentencing. She would have also had the opportunity to bring up the sexual assault to the convening authority during clemency. JAJM states they did not find an error or injustice with the court-martial process. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: She was never asked by the military judge about her military sexual trauma or current mental health condition. She was not afforded a defense just a plea bargain. She never received a mental health evaluation or the treatment for her sexual trauma while in the service. She was moved from one facility to another because of mental instability. She needs her discharge upgraded so that she can receive treatment for her service connected disability. Her recruiter that she saw years later informed her that she could reenlist and have her discharge upgraded. In further support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and various other supporting documents. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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 note that this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction. Rather, in accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552(f), actions by this Board are limited to corrections to the record to reflect actions taken by the reviewing officials and action on the sentence of the court-martial for the purpose of clemency. We find no evidence that indicates the applicant’s service characterization, which had its basis in her conviction by general court-martial and was a part of the sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). We have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the general court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offense to which convicted. However, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities that would enable us to determine if her accomplishments since her discharge are sufficient to overcome the misconduct for which she was discharged, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05506 in Executive Session on 18 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 10 Feb 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Mar 14, w/atchs.