RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02439 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be changed to a medical retirement with a physical disability rating of 70 percent. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unjustly separated rather than medically retired. Her supervisor had a personal issue with her being gay. She presented clear medical explanations as to why her medical conditions [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Fibromyalgia (FM)] along with several medications caused lack of sleep, and she slept through several alarms. She was singled out and punished because she was sick. Her command failed her by not recognizing the signs and helping her in her time of need. She is currently being treated for extreme PTSD. She received a disability rating of 90 percent from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). In addition, she has received privileged information indicating her supervisor was later found guilty of falsifying official documents and forced to retire. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 14 Mar 01. On 3 Sep 10, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found the applicant’s PTSD and FM to be in the line-of-duty (LOD: Yes), non-combat related unfitting conditions, and recommended she be placed on the Temporary Duty Retirement List (TDRL) and reevaluated in six months with a combined disability rating of 70 percent. On 13 Dec 10, the applicant’s commander notified her he was recommending her for discharge for a pattern of misconduct. The reasons for taking this action were: a.  On or about 12 Mar 10, she was found drunk on duty. As a result, she was punished through non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). b.  On or about 18 Jun 10, she did, without authority, absent herself from her place of duty. As a result, she received an Article 15. c.  On 13 May 10, she failed to report to duty on time. As a result she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and was filed in her Unfavorable Information File (UIF). d.  On 25 Feb 10, she failed to report for duty on time. As a result she received an LOR, and a UIF was established. e.  On 3 Feb 10, she failed to report for duty on time. As a result she received a Letter of Counseling (LOC). f.  On or about 12 Aug 08, she operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated. As a result, she received an LOR. On 22 Dec 10, the applicant’s commander recommended her for discharge, and the case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient. On 30 Dec 10, the discharge authority directed the applicant be separated with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.50.2, Pattern of Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline, and she not be offered probation and rehabilitation. On 10 Jan 11, the applicant’s administrative discharge under AFI 36-3208 was deferred due to the dual action nature of her separation (both for misconduct and for being unfit for duty), and the case was forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) per AFI 26-3212, Physical Evaluation For Retention, Retirement, And Separation. On 28 Jan 11, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) directed the applicant be discharged under AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and terminated her case in the Disability Evaluation System (DES) under AFI 36-3212. On 14 Feb 11, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, with a Narrative Reason for Separation of “Misconduct (Other),” and was credited with 9 years, 11 months, and 1 day of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which were attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. In accordance with AFI 36-3212, when a case is being processed with a final recommendation of unfit and an administrative action is pending, the case is processed as dual action and forwarded to the SAFPC for finalization. As such, the applicant’s case was forwarded to SAFPC on 1 Dec 10. SAFPC directed the applicant be furnished a General discharge in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, and noted “The Board’s task was to determine the appropriate disposition of the member, including characterization of her military service. While the member contends that her medications were the source of her leadership’s view of her inappropriate condition while on duty, there is insufficient medical evidence in her record to support this. The Board determined there was no casual (sic) relationship between the member’s medical condition and her alleged misconduct, and approves the member’s separation.” The preponderance of evidence reflects no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of separation. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. BCMR Clinical Health Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Before the Dual Action Board at SAFPC recommended administrative separation directed on 28 Jan 11, they considered all matters, to include the applicant’s claims of mitigation due to her mental health condition and the medications she had been taking. The applicant was subsequently discharged under AFI 36-3208 for a pattern of misconduct and with a service characterization of Under Honorable Conditions (General). From a medical and mental health perspective, the applicant was appropriately diagnosed, entered into the physical evaluation system and the findings of the Board were appropriate. Additionally, the advisor finds no convincing evidence of the existence of any medical, mental health, or medication circumstance which would offer mitigation or excuse for the findings against the applicant. The advisor finds no evidence of injustice or inequity in the records reviewed and opines the finding of the Dual Action Board was correct. A complete copy of the BCMR Clinical Health Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of her initial request, the applicant submitted a rebuttal taking exception to the staff advisories. She was not sick before deploying to Baghdad, Iraq in 2007. Her first panic attacks came in 2007 after her deployment. She would like her official records to show her PTSD was from deploying to a combat zone. For some reason her records show her PTSD was from childhood trauma. She volunteered the information about childhood trauma once she had started into therapy for combat-related PTSD. She would also like her records to show fibromyalgia is a disease which lies dormant until a traumatic event, such as a deployment, causes it to flare up. She has also been diagnosed with lupus and or another disorder that can lie dormant until a traumatic event. She takes, and continues to work on, taking responsibility for her actions which caused her unit to feel she was not salvageable (Exhibit F). FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 1.  After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. 2.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02439 in Executive Session on 3 Nov 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02439 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 19 Jun 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Clinical Health Consultant, dated 21 Sep 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 15. Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.