RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04600

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was given a choice by her commander to take either a medical discharge or a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  Her commander told her if she took the medical discharge no other police department would ever hire her because she would be seen as “broken.”  She was severely abused, physically, sexually and mentally during her time in the military.  She also was constantly hazed by her commander.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 22 Oct 91.

On 14 May 92, the applicant’s section commander notified her of his intent to recommend her discharge for minor disciplinary infractions as evidenced by the following:

a.  Letter of Reprimand, 4 Feb 92, derelict in the performance of her duties by willfully failing to remove the dickie from her uniform upon being instructed to do so by her student leader on or about 3 Feb 92. 

b.  Letter of Reprimand, 14 Apr 92, failure to go to place of duty on or about 11 Apr 92; letter placed in Unfavorable Information File.

c.  Verbal counsel, 28 Apr 92, disrespectful language and deportment toward superior noncommissioned officer on or about 15 Apr 92.

d.   Verbal counsel, 28 Apr 92, derelict in the performance of duties by failing to coordinate with Military Training Managers before going to an appointment on or about 16 Apr 92.

e.  Letter of Reprimand, 7 May 92, derelict in the performance of duties in violation of profile restrictions on or about 4 May 92.

On 21 May 92, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and reserved her right to consult military legal counsel and submit statements on her behalf.

On 22 May 92, the applicant was counselled by the Area Defense Counsel as to the nature of her separation action and her rights.    She elected a personal hearing with the separation authority and did not desire retention in the Air Force.

The separation action was determined to be legally sufficient on 8 Jun 92 and the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a General discharge without probation or rehabilitation, as past rehabilitative efforts were proven futile.

On 10 Jun 92, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct--pattern of minor disciplinary infractions,” and was credited with 7 months and 18 days of active service.

On 9 Mar 16, a request for post-service information was forwarded along with clemency guidelines to the applicant for review and submission.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office. (Exhibit C)

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

BCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends denial of an upgrade of discharge characterization to honorable.  The applicant claimed that she was a victim of abuse during her time in the Air Force, but she failed to disclose any details of the actions against her that qualifies as abusive.  The applicant was seen at the Veteran’s Administration (VA) in 2015 for Military Sexual Trauma (MST) and disclosed being “harassed” about weight, without giving away any other details.  Furthermore, the applicant reported a “history of MST that occurred years ago when on active duty in San Antonio.”  In the VA’s 2016 adjudication, they determined that the applicant’s current mental health illness was not a result of her military service.  Without additional information about the events, it cannot be established that an error or injustice took place in the decision rendered.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 4 Apr 17 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 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.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude she is the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant’s contention that she was severely abused, physically, sexually and mentally during her time in the military are duly noted.  However, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant and adopt the rational expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant failed to sustain her burden of establishing the existence of either an error or an injustice warranting favorable action on her request to upgrade her discharge to honorable.  Based on the evidence before us, it appears the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation in effect at the time and within the commander’s discretionary authority.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, the applicant did not submit supporting documentation concerning her post-service activities to determine if her accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which she was discharged.  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-2015-04600 in Executive Session on 24 Jan 17 and 17 May 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Oct 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Mar 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Psychiatric Advisor, 
                 dated 3 Apr 17
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Apr 17.

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.