RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04532

   						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her General (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  Her narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to a medical retirement.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her discharge was unjust because she was the victim of military sexual trauma.  Prior to falling apart, she was an outstanding military member.  A Master Sergeant (MSgt) told her he would ruin her military career if she did not have sex with him.  He continued to assault her over the next two years.  Her leadership should have identified the contradiction in performance and attempted to resolve her issue.  Instead, they pushed it under the rug.   

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 5 Aug 99.

On 18 Dec 01, the applicant’s commander notified her he was recommending her for an under honorable conditions (General) discharge for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions and for unsatisfactory performance for failure to progress in on-the-job training.  The reasons for this action were:

	a.  On or about 5 Apr 01, applicant was insubordinate toward a Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) who was in the execution of his office.  Also, applicant failed to obey an order or regulation by denying four times she cheated on her Unit Review Exercises (UREs). For this, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established.

b.  On 9 Jul 01, the applicant took the AFSC 1N051 course examination and received a score of 59.  This score was below the minimum passing score of 65.  The commander contacted the applicant's supervisor to ensure she received the necessary support and guidance for a retest.

	c.  On or about 15 Aug 01, the applicant double-parked her vehicle in front of the main entrance to Wilford Hall Medical Center for over 45 minutes, which prevented the 59th Medical Wing Commander use of his vehicle and hindered access of disabled personnel from using the designated disabled parking spaces.  For this, she received a LOR and was placed on the Control Roster.

d.  On or about 20 Aug 01, the applicant willfully disobeyed a lawful order issued by her commander by violating a no contact order.  For this offense, she received an Article 15 with a reduction to the grade of Airman, forfeiture of $100 pay per month for two months, and restriction to base for 30 days.

	e.  On 7 Nov 01, the applicant took the AFSC 1N051 course examination for a second time and received a score of 62.  This failure occurred despite the fact her supervisor made laudable efforts to assist her in meeting proficiency standards, including setting aside duty time for supervised Career Development Course (CDC) study.  As a result of this second failure, her enrollment in AFSC 1N051 was terminated.

On 21 Dec 01, the applicant’s commander recommended her for a general discharge.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, and was notified of her right to counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf.  The case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient, and the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with an under honorable conditions (General) discharge.  

On 11 Jan 02, the applicant was furnished an under honorable conditions (General) discharge, with a narrative reason for discharge of “Misconduct,” and was credited with two years, five months, and seven days of active service.   

According to the documentation provided by the applicant, on 18 Feb 15, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) assigned her a 70 percent compensable disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with major depressive disorder (MDD), effective 6 Oct 14.

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 C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 1.18.2, a General discharge is appropriate when "significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the airman's military record."  It is our opinion the discharge authority correctly concluded all of the circumstances surrounding the applicant's misconduct outweighed any positive aspects of her military service.  Her Article 15 was for violating a no contact order given to her by her commander where she was instructed to refrain from making any contact with a MSgt, however, on divers occasions she deliberately disobeyed the order.  The applicant now contends she was the victim of military sexual trauma at the hands of said MSgt and her unit was aware of this but took no action.  However, the specifics surrounding the situation are absent from the record, which prevents our office from reaching any conclusion regarding the validity of her accusation.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  We did not find any evidence of any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor does not make a recommendation, but contends “The difficulty lies in the lack of any substantial evidence to support applicant’s accusations.”  The applicant has made very serious allegations against her superior, another service member.  On the applicant’s entrance into the Air Force, she failed to report her extensive history of abuse, physical by her mother and sexual molestation by her uncle from the age of 12, her exposure to domestic violence at home between her parents, her prior history of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) since the age of 10, and medication management for the above mentioned illness.  On her medical form in Jun 99, the applicant reported some counseling due to the parental divorce and relative’s death, which was a very massive misrepresentation of the applicant’s problem list.  Therefore, it appears her entrance in some way was fraudulent due to the omission of some vital information.  The applicant is now accusing a male MSgt of sexually assaulting her between 2000 and 2001.  However, the claims of sexual assault are new and during her psychological evaluation in 2012, the applicant reported she and the MSgt “would hang out” and she continued to see him despite a no-contact order.  By 2014, the applicant’s story had changed to sexual assault.  She explained the Article 15 she received for violating a non-contact order as “Stockholm Syndrome.”  But the psychological symptoms that occur in Stockholm Syndrome occur in a person in a captive or hostage situation.  There are a few problems with her explanation of the events.  For one, she was not a hostage.  While one can find opinions the phenomena can extend to romantic relationships, this is certainly not the orthodox use of the term.  Furthermore, the applicant added a whole new layer to the story by disclosing the MSgt’s ex-wife’s death and his own suicide attempt.  One has to wonder about the reliability of the repost as its content appears to be a “moving target.”  The applicant suffered a very traumatic childhood and more likely than not, she had untreated mood, anxiety and possibly PTSD even prior to entering the military.  It is extremely challenging to identify reasons for her distress.  Not only does this consultant lack sufficient relevant information to make that determination, but it is also complicated by the possibility it could be multifactorial.  

The applicant uses her PTSD diagnoses provided by the DVA as the reason for her poor conduct during her military service.  This consultant struggles to make a connection between possible PTSD at the time of discharge and applicant’s misconduct, such as stealing the answer key for an open book CDC Volume Review Exercise; lying about cheating; and, illegal parking at the Medical Center entrance.  Even if this consultant is to agree with the applicant that she had suffered from PTSD or some other disabling Mental Health illness at the time of her discharge and it was unfitting, by regulations, she would still be confronted with a “dual-action” review by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, which would render her vulnerable for execution of the administrative discharge in lieu of a medical separation or retirement action.

Readdressing the applicant’s implicit desire for a medical retirement, the military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), only offer compensation for those service incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment present at the “snapshot”  time of separation and not based on post-service progression of disease or injury.  To the contrary, the DVA, operating under a different set of law, Title 38, U.S.C., is empowered to offer compensation for any medical condition with an established nexus with military service, without regard to its impact upon a member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release from service, or the length time transpired since the date of discharge.  The DVA may also conduct periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating awards as the level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary [improve or worsen] over the lifetime of the veteran.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

In further support of her request, the applicant submitted a personal statement in which she reiterates her contention her substandard performance for which she was separated was a direct result of her having been the victim of sexual assault.  The MSgt who raped her made her think the only way she would get promoted and stay out of trouble was to have sex with him.  It was not the forced and brutal type of act that leaves marks.  It was psychological and malicious.  She felt she had no choice but to do what he asked.  She does not have a rational reason for attempting to see him after the no-contact order.  She reacted in the same way many women react to abuse.  They often blame themselves and would rather see the offender free than get him in trouble.  She was also worried about his children and who would take care of them.  The ADHD, sexual molestation, divorce, and death described in her AFBCMR case did not touch her excellent performance or attitude.  It was shortly after the senior enlisted leader’s betrayal of her trust and human decency that her performance dropped.  To a young Airman, a senior enlisted leader is like a God: who can defend against God?  She admits she may have misapplied “Stockholm Syndrome,” but her reaction was to support the offender instead of hating him.  Based upon her behavior and performance, she sees why the Air Force needed to remove her, but the question of why a superior performer suddenly changed was never asked.  Contrary to the psychiatric advisory, CDC failure, misconduct and her “I don’t care” attitude were related to her frustration over the sexual assault.  It was not her fault she was raped.  For a long time she was in denial and could not express herself.  She has PTSD, and as the result of the event she may have suppressed a lot of emotion.  She asks the board not to hold that against her. (Exhibit F)

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, the Board waived the requirement for timely filing based upon Department of Defense policy guidelines for cases in which the applicant is claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  

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, to include her rebuttal to the Air Force evaluations, 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 adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While the Board notes the applicant’s contentions, she provided insufficient documentation to substantiate her serious criminal allegations.  The Board takes allegations of sexual assault extremely seriously, however, the AFBCMR is not an investigative body and will not alter existing records based upon unsubstantiated allegations.  If the applicant believes she was the victim of rape, we highly encourage her to file a report with the proper legal authorities to ensure a formal investigation is conducted.  However, in the absence of sufficient documentation to substantiate her allegations, the Board is not convinced the applicant was the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  

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-2014-04532 in Executive Session on 19 May 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 26 Nov 14.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, dated 8 Mar 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Mar 16.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Mar 16.