RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02309

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge [sic] be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While on active duty, she was assaulted and experienced a life threatening incident which affected her reaction to those in authority and power, which caused her to react in fear.  In fear of the consequence of her actions, she did not return to serve in the Reserve and as a result, did not receive an honorable discharge from the Air Force Reserve (USAFR).   

She has severe memory loss; therefore, she cannot provide all the details which occurred while in the USAFR.  However, she believes she deserves an upgrade to an honorable discharge.  

She believes she suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) while in the military but cannot receive medical services (other than counseling for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)) to get tested for a possible TBI.  Providing the discharge upgrade will allow her to receive other services from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital.   

In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Jan 82, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 4 Apr 86, the applicant was discharged for pregnancy with narrative reason for separation of Pregnancy with service characterized as honorable.  She served 4 years, 2 months, and 22 days of total active service. 

On 8 Sep 87, the applicant enlisted in the USAFR in the pay grade of Senior Airman (E-4).  On 10 Aug 93, she was honorably discharged from the USAFR for the purpose of immediate reenlistment, effective 11 Aug 93.   

On or about 4 Apr 97, the applicant prepared, signed, and submitted a DD Form 1351-2, Travel Voucher for presentation, payment and reimbursement, which she knew to be false.  For this misconduct, she received an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), with punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of staff sergeant and a reprimand. 

On 7-8 Aug 97, the applicant failed to show for a rescheduled Jul 97 Unit Training Assembly (UTA) and on 9-10 Aug 97, she failed to show to complete her Article 15 paperwork.  For this misconduct, she received a memo for record.

On 3 Dec 98, the applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to recommend her discharge from the USAFR for Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, Other Serious Offense, Misconduct, A Pattern of Misconduct, Failure to meet Financial Obligations and Unsatisfactory Participation under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, chapter 3, paragraphs 3.21.3.4, 3.21.2.4 and 3.13.2.  Specifically, the applicant was being discharged for falsely preparing, signing, and submitting a DD Form 1351-2, for presentation, payment and reimbursement; failure to meet her personal financial obligations by not repaying the debt she incurred on her Government American Express card in the amount of $1,402.66; and accumulating 9 or more unexcused absences from UTAs between Aug 97 and Jun 98.  On 15 Dec 98, the notification for discharge action was forwarded to the applicant’s last known address.  

On 22 Jan 99, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support discharge and recommended to the AFRC/CV that the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without the offer of probation or rehabilitation.  The SJA noted that on 3 Dec 98, a memorandum of notification of initiation of administrative discharge action was sent via certified mail to the applicant to her last known address given.   On 15 Dec 98, the same information was sent by first class mail to the same address as the certified mail.  However, the certified mail was returned by the Postmaster of Buffalo, New York and on 4 Jan 99, the first class mail was returned as not known at address given. Based on the aforementioned information, the SJA concluded the applicant has not maintained communication with her unit therefore, she has effectively waived her rights and, thus, discharge processing may continue.  
On 18 Feb 99, the AFRC/CV reviewed the case and recommendation of the SJA and directed that she be discharged from the USAFR with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, without the offer of probation or rehabilitation.   

According to Special Order A-099 dated 18 Feb 99, on 5 Mar 99, the applicant was discharged from the USAFR for Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, Other Serious Offense, Misconduct, a Pattern of Misconduct, Failure to meet Financial Obligations and Unsatisfactory Participation.  However, Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, Other Serious Offense is cited as the primary reason.   

On 15 Jun 15, the DVA granted the applicant service connection for PTSD with depression with a 70 percent compensable disability rating.

On 25 Jul 15, the AFBCMR Board staff offered the applicant the opportunity to provide information pertaining to her activities since leaving the service (Exhibit C).  As of this date, this office has not received a response.      

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends deny.  The Psychiatric Consultant would like to note that the applicant’s discharge was characterized as general (under honorable conditions) and not UOTHC, as stated by the applicant in her petition.  Further, the Psychiatric Consultant noted her characterization of service does not preclude her from obtaining care through the VA system.  In fact, she received service-connection for PTSD.  Her statement that she is not able to get evaluated for TBI, is also not accurate.  Specifically, in Jun 15, she was seen by a neurologist for memory related issues, her neurological examination was normal and the evaluating neurologist recommended full neuropsychological testing and Magnetic Resonance Imagining (MRI) of the head.  In Jul 15, her MRI was completed and there were no pathological findings of the brain.  Neuropsychological testing was also completed in Jul 15, and the results did not reveal any significant cognitive anomaly.  The above aforementioned assessments constitute the comprehensive TBI evaluation.  Furthermore, the results indicated that the applicant has no evidence of TBI and her memory issues are subjective in nature and most likely are related to her mental health issues, fluctuating thyroid levels and sleep deprivation.  

The applicant’s service treatment record includes clear documentation of the event she has referred to on multiple occasions.  Specifically, on 16 Sep 85, the medical provider recorded in the chart the incident of spousal abuse.  Given the brutality of the assault the consultant would not be surprised if the applicant has developed PTSD symptoms, furthermore, the applicant reported being married to the abusive individual for a number of years and probably has sustained continued abuse from him.  The chronicity of the abuse, would make the applicant even more vulnerable to the development of the psychopathology.  However, after people experience trauma, only a minority progress to the development of PTSD.  Therefore, the experience of the traumatic event, does not immediately imply the presence of PTSD.  Furthermore, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV/V states “symptoms usually begin within the first three months after the trauma, although there may be a delay of months, or even years, before the criteria for the diagnosis are met.”  Consequently, diagnosis of PTSD by the DVA does not automatically invalidate the actions of the military department.  

On review of all the medical records, the Psychiatric Consultant has found no evidence that the applicant has suffered from PTSD related symptoms during her military service.  In fact, on her Reports of Medical History in 87, 91 and 95, she denied any mental health issues.  On review of the applicant’s VA records, the Psychiatric Consultant noted in the psychology intake note that per the applicant’s report the symptoms became bothersome in 2015 in the context of her work with victims of the military sexual trauma as a chaplain at the VA.  In other words, it appears the applicant’s symptoms and PTSD onset was triggered by the stories she has heard from other victims of sexual assault.  While the DVA granted the applicant a 70 percent compensable disability rating for PTSD, suggesting, there has been a nexus with an event during military service.  However, this evidence does not invalidate the appropriateness of the military discharge disposition, which was based upon the diagnostic distinction present at the “snap shot” time of the applicant’s release from military service.   

Finally, for awareness, the DVA is authorized, under Title 38 United States Code, to offer compensation for any medical condition with a link with military service, without regard to its proven impact upon a former service member’s fitness to serve, the narrative reason for release from service, or the duration of time passed since separation.  This is the reason why an individual may be released from service for one reason and later receive a compensation rating for one or more medical conditions that were not considered militarily unfitting or eligible for military disability processing at the time of military service.  The DVA is also empowered to conduct periodic reevaluations for the purpose of adjusting the disability rating determinations (increase or decrease) as the level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary (worsen or improve) over the lifetime of the veteran.

The Psychiatric Consultant would gladly review any other additional documentation that the applicant can provide, but without any additional supporting evidence to substantiate her claim this Psychiatric Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants the desired change of the record.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 3 Aug 16, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 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 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 opinion and recommendation of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  We note the applicant’s character of service is general (under honorable conditions) as opposed to her stated request for her under other as honorable conditions (UOTHC) be updated to honorable.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the character of service based on clemency; however, there was no evidence submitted to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  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-2015-02309 in Executive Session on 27 Sep 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02309 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 May 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 15, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant, 
                 dated 28 Jul 16.
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3Aug 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 that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.