RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02500 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1.  Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect an honorable versus general discharge, with the narrative reason for separation, separation code, and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code to be indicative of honorable service and present a reasonable opportunity for reenlistment. 2.  Her nonjudicial punishment (NJP) be removed from her records. 3.  Her referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) be removed from her record. 4.  She be returned to active duty (AD) and entry into the Physical Disability Evaluation System (DES), with back pay and entitlements from the time of her erroneous discharge until completion of the DES process. 5.  She receive a hearing if this application is denied. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unjustly discharged from the Air Force for misconduct she did not commit, while suffering severe medical conditions directly relating to maltreatment by her husband and mismanagement by her chain of command. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 8 Jun 09. On 18 Mar 13, the applicant received a referral EPR for the time period 8 Feb 12 to 18 Mar 13. The EPR was referred due to the applicant’s rating of “Does not Meet Standards” in Section III, item 2, “Member received Article 15 for violation of UCMJ Order 134 – Communicating a Threat. On 18 Jun 13, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge for Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions. His reasons for this action were: 1.  On or about 16 Jul 10, the applicant failed to stand in formation at a wing change of command ceremony as directed. When confronted about this issue, she gave two false official statements. For this misconduct, she received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) dated 10 Aug 10. 2.  On or about 15 Sep 10, the applicant failed to attend a training course despite being twice reminded of the requirement. For this misconduct, she received a LOC dated 15 Sep 10. 3.  On 19 Oct 10, the applicant was disrespectful to an NCO. For this misconduct, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 29 Oct 10. 4.  On or about 8 Nov 10, the applicant failed to report for duty at the scheduled time and failed to notify her supervisor or duty section she would be late. For this misconduct, she received a LOC dated 8 Nov 10. 5.  On or about 9 Dec 10, the applicant assaulted and spit on another airman during a verbal altercation. For this misconduct, she received a LOR dated 10 Feb 11. 6.  On or about 25 Jan 11, the applicant broke into an airman’s dorm room on two occasions. For this misconduct she received a LOR dated 10 Feb 11. 7.  On or about 23 Jul 11, the applicant was 45 minutes late to a mandatory office meeting despite being previously counseled on the need to arrive to work on time. For this misconduct, she received a LOC dated 26 Jul 11. 8.  Between on or about 5 Sep 12 and on or about 22 Jan 13, the applicant wrongfully communicated to a civilian a threat, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. For this misconduct, she received punishment on 15 Feb 13 under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman first class and a reprimand. 9.  On or about 3 May 13, the applicant was disrespectful to an officer by ignoring her and refusing to turn around to address her calls of the applicant’s name. For this misconduct, she received a LOR dated 17 May 13. On 20 Jun 13, the applicant responded to the proposed discharge taking full responsibility for her actions that brought discredit upon herself and the Air Force. She stated she enrolled in life skill building groups to better represent herself as a professional military member, and that she would like a chance to prove herself, and actualize her leadership potential. On 21 Jun 13, the applicant’s commander recommended to the discharge authority that she be discharged for Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions, in accordance with AFPD 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations. He recommended an Under Honorable Conditions (General) Discharge. On 21 Jun 13, the discharge authority after being advised by the Staff Judge Advocate that the discharge action was legally sufficient, directed that the applicant be discharged under AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions, to receive an Under Honorable Conditions (General) Discharge service characterization. He denied probation and rehabilitation (P&R) believing it inappropriate due to the applicant’s inability to bring her behavior in line with Air Force standards and refrain from further misconduct. On 8 Jul 13, the applicant was furnished an Under Honorable Conditions, general discharge, and was credited with four years, one month, and one day of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, E and F. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice in regards to discharge characterization, NJP, and referral EPR. The applicant’s actions constituted misconduct and a general discharge was an appropriate characterization. However, she has not exhausted all administrative avenues regarding upgrade of her discharge characterization by first submitting a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge, to the Air Force Discharge Review Board. NJP is authorized by Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C. § 815), and governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial (Part V) and AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial Punishment. This procedure permits commanders to dispose of certain offenses without trial by court-martial unless the service member objects (a Service Member can reject the NJP and demand trial by court-martial). The evidence submitted does not clearly show that the NJP was unwarranted or based on faulty evidence. In fact, when reviewing the NJP it is clear that the commander considered all of the applicant’s current submissions as evidenced by only finding she committed one of the specifications on the NJP. The commander’s ultimate decision on the NJP action was reviewed on multiple levels for legal sufficiency and it was determined that the commander’s decision was rooted in firm evidence and the punishment decisions was well within the limits of the commander’s authority and discretion. All legal requirements and due process were met in the applicant’s case. Although they are not the office of primary responsibility (OPR) regarding EPRs, they opine that the referral EPR was justified in that the comments within the evaluation referred to the justified Article 15 received during the EPR rating period. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the SPD code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service. The applicant’s records reveal she was afforded several opportunities to overcome her deficiencies in her conduct, but with no success. She repeatedly failed to conform to Air Force standards of conduct, therefore, the SPD code (JKN-Misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions), and narrative reason for separation – Misconduct (minor infractions), were correct as indicated on her DD Form 214. They opined that the discharge authority correctly concluded that all the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s misconduct outweighed any positive aspects of her military service, therefore, in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, her character of service Under Honorable Conditions – General, was appropriate. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice in regards to the applicant’s RE code. On 21 Jun 13, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s involuntary discharge with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) character of service for Minor Disciplinary Infractions. In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, airmen separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge receive an RE code 2B. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E. AFBCMR Mental Health Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice in regards to the diagnosis, treatment, and disposition of applicant’s mental health conditions. She was first diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), secondary to childhood abuse (Existed Prior to Service (EPTS)), chronic, on 11 Mar 10. During the course of her interactions with military mental health she also went on to receive diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder. In spite of ongoing treatment over the course of multiple years, the applicant was never deemed to be unfit for military service and/or referred for Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). At her final appearance with military mental health on 8 Mar 13, she was given the diagnoses of Chronic Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder, but the provider went on to specifically document that the applicant was world-wide qualified, deployable and that she had no duty-limiting restrictions. No evidence was seen to support a contention that the applicant was mentally unfit for duty at the time of her discharge, despite multiple mental health diagnoses, including PTSD. Additionally, no evidence was seen which would support a mental health condition as being an extenuating factor in any of her misbehaviors and eventual administrative discharge. The Medical Consultant found no evidence to support the requested relief. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Mental Health Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Through counsel, the applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPRs arguing that the advisories are simply form denial letters, with blanket assertions that “applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice.” This is wholly irrational because she submitted a 259 page application for discharge upgrade containing a supportive letter from her husband, excerpts of audio recordings, and photographs. Counsel contends all of the advisory opinions urge the Board to overlook the injustice done to the applicant. They close by reiterating the applicant’s requested relief. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit H. 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 to include the rebuttal response to the advisory opinions; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Regarding the applicant’s rebuttal via her counsel that the Air Force advisories were simply form denial letters, with blanket assertions that “applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice,” and the advisories urged the Board to overlook the injustice done to the applicant, we find no merit in these contentions. Based on the evidence before us, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper; that consideration of all the applicant’s current submissions was taken into account, and the punishment decisions were well within the limits of the commander’s authority and discretion. Also, there was no evidence provided supporting a mental health condition as being an extenuating factor in any of her misbehaviors and eventual administrative discharge, or a medical condition at the time of discharge meriting Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) consideration. Additionally, regarding the applicant’s request for upgrade of her discharge characterization, we agree with AFLOA/JAJM that she has not exhausted her administrative remedies by first submitting a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge, to the Air Force Discharge Review Board. Should the applicant feel she is still the victim of error or injustice after exhausting her administrative remedy on this issue, she may reapply to the Board. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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-2014-02500 in Executive Session on 4 Nov 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02500 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 3 Nov 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Nov 14. Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 3 Dec 14. Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFBCMR/Mental Health Consultant,   dated 21 Sep 15. Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Sep 15. Exhibit H.  Letter, Counsel, dated 5 Oct 15.