RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04622 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her service-connected disabilities directly relate to her current discharge status.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 Dec 05.
On 13 Jun 12, the applicant allowed her former husband, a Military Training Instructor (MTI), to participate in Physical Training and open ranks inspections with non-prior service (NPS) airmen on multiple occasions, when she was a Military Training Leader (MTL). For this misconduct, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

Between on or about 23 Oct 12 and on or about 6 Nov 12, the applicant wrongfully used amphetamine (D-AMP), a controlled substance, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). For this misconduct, she received non-judicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ and was reduced in grade from staff sergeant to senior airman with a new date of rank of 10 Jan 13.

On 10 Jan 13, the applicant failed to report on time for an appointment with her former commander. For this misconduct, she received a Letter of Counseling.

On multiple occasions between on or about 8 Jan 13 and on or about
25 Jan 13, the applicant failed to go to her duty location and failed to go to her appointed place of duty on time. During this same time period, on multiple occasions, without authority, the applicant left her appointed place of duty prior to the end of the

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

duty day.  For this misconduct, she received a LOR.  Also, on
29 Jan 13, she appeared at a mandatory military appointment wearing the rank of staff sergeant, even though she was well aware that her rank was reduced to senior airman. For this misconduct, she received a LOR.

On 12 Mar 13, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen paragraphs 5.49 (minor disciplinary infractions) and 5.54 (drug abuse).	Prior to initiating discharge, the commander reviewed the facts of the case and considered the applicant’s entire military record, including her LOC, LORs and her Article 15, UCMJ.	The commander noted he considered that the applicant’s program manager determined her to be an Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) failure due to her unwillingness to complete the program.			The	commander		determined	the	applicant	committed	a variety	of		minor	disciplinary		infractions	and	abused	drugs, including wrongfully using amphetamines (D-AMP), in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ.		The commander determined the applicant’s integrity has been seriously jeopardized, and she is unsuitable for the Air Force.	The commander did not recommend the applicant for probation and rehabilitation (P&R) and noted that the applicant was	not		eligible		for	P&R,	because	AFI	36-3208,	paragraph
7.2.6.7 does not authorize P&R for airmen who abuse drugs.
According to a Legal Review of Administrative Discharge Action memorandum dated 6 Jun 13, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) reviewed the case file and found it legally sufficient to support discharge. The SJA noted the applicant was entitled to a board hearing; however; she waived her right by failing to respond to the notification of discharge, despite being granted an extension. Also, according to AFI 36-3208, paragraph 6.19.4, the separation authority must determine which basis is the primary reason if the member is subject to discharge for more than one reason.

On 12 Jun 13, the separation authority approved the separation with the primary basis for discharge being drug abuse and that her service be characterized as general (under honorable conditions), and that she not be given P&R.

According to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Narrative Summary, dated 19 Jul 13, the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis 1, Mood Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), Polysubstance Dependence, with physiologic dependence (Opioids, Amphetamines, Nicotine) and Axis II, Personality Disorder NOS. The mental health provider noted the applicant has demonstrated persistent psychiatric symptoms for many years, with decompensation over the last two years resulting in multiple inpatient and outpatient psychiatric hospitalizations, multiple medication trials and continued self- injurious behaviors which are not compatible with continued military service; she possesses a condition which is medically unacceptable in accordance with AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards, paragraph 5.3.12.2.  Specifically, the applicant

has a history of greater than two recurrent depressive episodes of severe impairment now requiring frequent psychiatric support to include management via mood-stabilizing agents; she is conceptualized to possess a personality structure characterized by primitive coping mechanisms which in times of external/situational crises are insufficient to protect a fragile sense of self, predisposing her toward polysubstance misuse and other self- injurious behaviors; she has received the maximum benefit from current therapeutic modalities offered in the military; however, she may benefit from regular civilian mental health care; her condition may be expected to worsen in the military environment; and her prognosis is fair to poor.

According to a MEB/Commander’s Evaluation memorandum dated 6 Sep 13, the applicant’s former commander noted she was removed from and will not be allowed to return to her MTL duties as a result of administrative actions. The commander recommended the applicant be separated from the Air Force.

According to a Request for Retention Beyond, Expiration Term of Service (ETS) memorandum dated 24 Oct 13, the applicant submitted a request to AFPC/DPANM, that she be retained on active military status beyond her ETS, for medical treatment or evaluation, and if necessary, for processing for disability separation. It was noted the applicant’s original date of separation was effective 30 Nov 14; however, she received a High Year of Tenure (HYT) separation notification for 6 Dec 13. Further, it was noted that AFPC/DPANM has directed a full MEB.

On 5 Dec 13, a MEB convened to consider the applicant for continued active duty. The board recommended the applicant be referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for Mood Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) and Chronic Low Back Pain (Lumbago). On 9 Dec 13, the applicant was informed of the findings and recommendations of the board. On 13 Dec 13, the applicant reviewed the contents of the MEB and Narrative Summary and did not request an impartial review of the MEB.

On 19 Dec 13, the IPEB reviewed the case and found the applicant fit and recommended she be returned to duty and processed under AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, if appropriate. The IPEB noted her medical conditions are either unsuiting or not unfitting and therefore were not subject to Disability law/policy. In accordance with (IAW) DoDI 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, paragraph E5.1.2.1. “certain conditions and defects of a developmental nature designated by the Secretary of Defense do not constitute a physical disability and are not ratable in the absence of an underlying ratable causative disorder. If there is a causative disorder it will be rated IAW other provisions of this instruction.” The applicant’s medical conditions fall into this category and are not subject to Disability law/policy.

Lumbago: The IPEB opined lumbago is not unfitting due to the applicant’s reported polysubstance abuse disorder and drug seeking

behavior in the absence objective findings to account for reported back pain.

Mood Disorder, NOS: The IPEB opined observation and treatment over a two year period is more likely to accurately reflect the applicant’s mental health condition. Her mood disorder has improved and stabilized with current treatment with no attempts at self-harm in the last year. Mood Disorder is not currently unfitting.

Polysubstance Abuse: The IPEB opined Polysubstance Abuse is an unsuiting condition, not and unfitting condition. The applicant reported at age 14 using alcohol, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD), and marijuana and by 18 was using methamphetamine, ecstasy, Gamma- Hydroxybutyric Acid (GHB), and ketamine describing using marijuana and meth “as often as possible”, often daily for months at a time over a period of seven years and experiencing severe withdrawal symptoms when she discontinued use just prior to her Air Force enlistment. After entering the Air Force, the applicant reported abusing prescription opioids up to 15 tablets/day “of whatever I could get.” She reported abusing stimulants in 2011 and stealing prescriptions from friends. From 2005 – 2013, the applicant reported she did not have any lasting sobriety during which she was not under the influence of one or more substances or withdrawing from those substances.

On 30 Dec 13, the applicant agreed with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and waived her right to a Formal PEB.

On 31 Dec 13, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) directed the applicant be returned to duty.

On 14 Jan 14, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, with narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (Drug Abuse). She was credited with eight years, one month and nine days of active duty service.

On 22 Mar 16, the applicant was notified that AFI 36-2603, AFBCMR, paragraph 4.7.3 requires that if an applicant has not exhausted all available effective administrative remedies, the application will be denied by the Board on that basis.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1.	The	applicant	has	not	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 error or injustice.	In this respect,
1.	

we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. The Air Force office of primary responsibility has reviewed this application and indicated there is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued. In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that all available avenues of administrative relief have not been exhausted; and the application will only be reconsidered upon submission of documentary evidence indicating that said avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04622 in Executive Session on 25 Jan 17, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 16.
Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.	Email, AFBCMR, dated 18 Feb 16. Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Mar 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.