RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-05181

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She receive a medical discharge (implied medical separation or retirement) due to military sexual trauma (MST). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was discharged for pregnancy when in fact it was due to MST.  The stress and difficulty dealing with the MST was the cause of her discharge.  She is now rated 100% service-connected due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from MST.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 28 Nov 06, the applicant entered active duty.  

On 20 Sep 07, the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty with a “MDF” separation code (Pregnancy or Childbirth) and credited with 9 months and 24 days active service.  

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 for Personnel and Readiness (USD P&R) 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.  Relief may be appropriate, however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with the aforementioned mental health conditions and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the facts and circumstances.  

On 25 Jul 18, the USD P&R issued further guidance with the intent to set clear standards.  Copies of the Board guidance memoranda are at Exhibit E.

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 Psychological Advisor recommends denying the application. While her MST experience is not in question, this psychological advisor opines based on available records that there is insufficient evidence that her mental health condition in particular PTSD caused by MST in service met criteria for a medical evaluation board/separation.  There was no documentation of any mental health conditions considered unfitting for continued service and no duty limiting condition profile was recorded.  There was also no records available for review to assess whether her mental health condition affected her ability to reasonably performed duties in her office, grade, rank, and rating.  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 1 Oct 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not imely filed.

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 not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the AFBCMR Psychological Advisor and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions. The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  Moreover, the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed all available avenues of administrative relief have not been exhausted, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of documentary evidence indicating that such avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted.

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-2017-05181 in Executive Session on 20 Nov 18:

Panel Chair
Panel Member
Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atch, dated 20 Nov 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 13 Sep 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 1 Oct 18.
Exhibit E:	Clarifying guidance, various dates.

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