RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00177

	COUNSEL: 
	
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge Under Other than Honorable Conditions be upgraded to Honorable. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During her service, she was the victim of unwanted sexual advances and assault.  First, when she was being treated at the base hospital, her doctor touched her inappropriately.  Second, a married co-worker made an inappropriate pass.  When she declined, he talked negatively about her at work.  Finally, she was horribly raped and held captive for two days.  After that, she started to misbehave, drink too much, and could not function normally.  She has been receiving therapy from a veteran’s hospital and her service in the Air Force was upgraded by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to Honorable on 20 Nov 13.  She was also granted a 70 percent disability rating, effective 21 Sep 15.  She was not a perfect airman, made mistakes, and regret them; however, she is proud to have served in the Air Force.  In support of her request, she provides her resume, diplomas, certificates, her DVA rating, her Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report, and letters of support.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibits A, D and G.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman first class.  

On 24 Dec 85, the applicant received an Article 15 for stealing.  Her punishment consisted of reduction to airman basic and forfeiture of $50.00.

On 24 Sep 87, an investigation was requested into telephone calls initiated from the applicant’s duty station, base operations.  

On 21 Dec 87, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) published their report finding indicated the applicant made several personal calls on a government telephone.

On 26 Jan 88, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for dereliction of duty.

On 2 Mar 88, the applicant was counseled for missing a mandatory appointment.  

On 8 Mar 88, the applicant received a LOR for failing to report back to duty after an appointment.

On 14 Apr 88, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to prefer charges for violation of Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92, for misuse of government phones.  

On 19 Apr 88, the applicant’s commander recommended she be discharged in lieu of trail by court-martial.  

On 27 Apr 88, the discharge action was found legally sufficient, and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 28 Apr 88.

On 6 May 88, the applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge with a narrative reason for separation of Discharge in Lieu of Court Martial. 

On 19 May 89, according to the documents submitted by the applicant, she was arrested on a larceny charge (4th degree).

On 30 Dec 94, according to the documents submitted by the applicant, she was arrested on a failure to appear charge.  

On 27 Feb 13, according to the documents submitted by the applicant, she was arrested for driving while intoxicated (first offense).  

On 20 Nov 13, according to the documents submitted by the applicant, the DVA decided her service was Honorable for purposes of veteran benefits under Title 38.  

Effective 21 Sep 15, the DVA rated her Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with depression anxiety and alcohol abuse disorder at 70 percent, service connected.  

On 3 Sep 14, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum providing guidance to the Military Department Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records as they carefully consider each petition regarding discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming PTSD.  In addition, time limits to reconsider decisions will be liberally waived for applications covered by this guidance.

On 25 Aug 17, the Under Secretary of Defense issued clarifying guidance to Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to mental health conditions [PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment].  Liberal consideration will be given to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on the aforementioned conditions.

Currently, service members diagnosed with mental health conditions receive heightened screening to ensure the causal relationship of possible symptoms and discharge basis is fully considered, and characterization of service is appropriate.  Veterans discharged under prior procedures, or before verifiable diagnosis, may not have suffered an error because the separation authority was unaware of their condition or experience at the time of discharge.  However, when compared to similarly situated individuals under current standards, they may be the victim of injustice because commanders fully informed of such conditions and causal relationships today may opt for a less prejudicial discharge to ensure the veteran retains certain benefits, such as medical care.

Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  However, relief may be appropriate for minor misconduct commonly associated with the aforementioned mental health conditions and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.  For more information on liberal consideration guidance, see Exhibit H.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Psychiatric Consultant recommends granting the application finding sufficient evidence to warrant a discharge upgrade to Honorable.  If everything the applicant reports is accurate, she was not treated equitable based on both the fact that it was her abuser who investigated her and others were not discharged for the same offense – misuse of a government phone.  The sexual abuse she endured was a strong mitigating factor in her actions.  The fact she was the only one punished for making long distance calls was a clear case of inequity.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 6 Dec 17 for comment (Exhibit F), and the applicant replied on 20 Dec 17.  In her response, the applicant admits to making the phone calls as she needed emotional support.  Furthermore, the 1987 rape incident was not done by an officer she was dating, rather a college class instructor.  Additionally, she was physically abused by an airman she dated in 1985.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is the victim of an injustice.  While the Board finds no error in the original discharge process, the Board agrees with the BCMR Psychiatric Consultant and recommends relief based on the liberal consideration guidance finding the applicant was a victim of sexual harassment and assault during service and these were more likely than not a mitigating factor in her subsequent negative behavior.  Therefore, the Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 6 May 1988, she was discharged with an “honorable” character of service, with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority,” and a separation program designator code of “JFF.”

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-00177 in Executive Session on 8 May 18:

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 10 Jan 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Letter, SAF/MRBC, w/clemency bulletin, dated 20 May 16.
Exhibit D:	Applicant’s response, undated.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, SAF/MRBM, dated 15 Nov 17.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, w/atchs, dated 6 Dec 17.
Exhibit G:	Applicant’s response, dated 20 Dec 17.
Exhibit H:	Clarifying Guidance to BCMRs.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.