RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00478 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following corrections be made to her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty: 1. Block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade) be changed to reflect Senior Airman (SrA). 2. Block 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) should reflect award of the: a. Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM). (will be administratively corrected) b. Air Force Overseas Ribbon-Short Tour (AFOR-ST). 3. Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) be changed from “Pregnancy” to “Medical.” ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. She should have been promoted to the grade of SrA. She completed 36 months on active duty, was proficient in on-the-job training, physical fitness requirements, and performed at or above expectations. 2. She was awarded the AFAM. 3. She completed a short tour and long tour as evidenced on her DD Form 214. 4. The specific medical condition on her DD Form 214 violates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Once she registers her DD Form 214 with the county clerk, her DD Form 214 becomes a public record. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her DD Form 214; AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, Report of Fitness Test, training records, orders, certificates and motor vehicle operation ID card. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Air Force from 9 Apr 92 to 10 Apr 95. Her DD Form 214 reflects her entitlement to the National Defense Service Medal, Air Force Training Ribbon, and the AFOR-Long Tour (AFOR-LT). She completed 3 years and 1 day of total active service, with 2 years, 7 months, and 27 days being Foreign Service. AFPC/DPSID was able to verify the applicant’s entitlement to the AFAM and the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) and will administratively correct her records to reflect these awards. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her rank and pay grade reflected on her DD Form 214. DPSOE states that the applicant does not provide, nor does her record contain, any official documentation (orders) promoting her to the grade of senior airman. DPSOE states that airman first class are eligible for promotion consideration to senior airman upon meeting minimum requirements in AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, Table 2.1, recommended by commander in writing, have 36 months’ time-in- service (TIS) and 20 months’ time-in-grade (TIG), or 28 months TIG, whichever occurs first. Based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to airman first class, she would have been eligible for promotion consideration to senior airman effective 9 Apr 95 (the day prior to her separation). The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for entitlement to the AFOR-ST. DPSID states that they were unable to verify the applicant was credited with the completion of an overseas tour that qualifies for award of the AFOR-ST. The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates she was awarded the AFOR- LT for her tour of duty at Kadena Air Base, Japan. The AFOR was authorized by the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, on 12 Oct 80. The ribbon was authorized to be awarded to Air Force and Air Force Reserve members credited with completion of an overseas tour on or after 1 Sep 80. Only individuals serving on active duty as of 6 Jan 86 are eligible to have the AFOR applied retroactively for completion of an overseas tour. The ribbon is awarded for completion of a short tour or completion of a long tour as defined by AFI 36-2110, Assignments. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for separation from Pregnancy to Medical. DPSOS states that the applicant applied for separation with an effective date of 10 Apr 95 for Pregnancy, and her request was approved by the discharge authority. She was discharged per her request and was not discharged because of medical pregnancy reasons. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The applicant has not provided any supporting documents that would warrant a change to her separation code or narrative reason for separation. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The 100 percent service-connected disability award letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) directly refutes the advisory writer’s assertion “...the basis for the applicant’s requested action has no merit and is submitted to gain entitlement to VA benefits for which she is not entitled based on her limited time on active duty.” As a result of an exhaustive investigation conducted by the DVA, she has been awarded a service-connected disability rating of 100 percent for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which was caused by a hostile work environment during her active duty service. The advisory writer’s assertions are unacceptable and an example of the vitriolic treatment that veterans do not deserve. She would like to have this portion of the research and determination removed from her proceedings and the research done by an objective individual, preferable a female. She is rated at 100 percent by the VA and has been receiving benefits long before this proceeding; therefore, she would like a code representing a medical discharge. The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant changing her grade to SrA or to award the AFOR-ST. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Regarding the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason for separation from pregnancy to a medical discharge, as noted by the Separations Branch, the applicant was approved for a pregnancy discharge per her request and was not discharged due to medical pregnancy reasons. The applicant has not presented substantial evidence to support her claim that her narrative reason for separation should be changed to a medical discharge. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC-2013-00478 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Mar 13. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 May 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 28 Jun 12 [sic]. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Aug 13, w/atchs. Panel Chair