AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

6 

AUG 2 5 1998 

DOCKET NUMBER: 95-02296 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

RESUME OF CASE: 
In 1995,  subject applicant requested that recoupment action for 
approximately $17, 000 in ROTC scholarship benefits cease or, in 
the  alternative,  the  validity  of  her  honorable  discharge  be 
reviewed  because  her  physical  disability  (epilepsy) occurred 
while  she  was  under  contract  with  the  Air  Force.  The  AFBCMR 
denied her request on August 8, 1996. In her original appeal, no 
documentation  was  provided  to  indicate  an  existing  medical 
problem  either  prior  to  or  during  the  disenrollment 
investigation;  therefore,  the  Board  found  no  evidence  that  a 
medical evaluation was required prior to her disenrollment. 
A  copy of the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit I. 
In a letter dated April 27, 1997,  subject applicant contends, in 
part, that her discharge order was not lawful, that she was not 
discharged until  the order was received by  her, and  she had no 
knowledge of her impending discharge. She cites Uniform Code of 
Military  Justice  (UCMJ) Articles  90  and  92.  In  order  to  be 
discharged, she had  to be  legally and properly  discharged. She 
argues  that  military orders cannot be  given retroactively. Her 
discharge order may have been  signed on June 11, 1993,  but  she 
did not  receive it until June 27,  1993.  Since she was aware at 
this  time of  her  illness, and now knew that  she was  no longer 
physically  qualified  for military  service, that  should  be  the 
real reason for her discharge from the Air Force. She therefore 
requests  that  the  effective  date  of  discharge  be  changed  to 
June 27,  1993  and  the  discharge  reason  changed  to  medical 
ineligibility.  She  provides  medical  documentation  which  she 
believes  substantiates  her  contention  that  a  pre-existing 
condition physically disqualified her for AFROTC. She also argues 
that  the  AFROTC  detachment  was  poorly  managed  and  offered  a 
nursing program which did not have a realistic chance of success, 
and that she suffered from sexual harassment. 

Applicantls complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit J. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  AFBCMR  Medical  Consultant  reviewed  this  appeal  and  states 
that applicant's neurologist discovered that she had probably had 
four complex partial seizures since March 1993 up to the time of 
the  generalized  seizure.  Complex  seizures  can  vary  in  effects 
from momentary loss of contact with one's surroundings up  to and 
including full-blown convulsions. Her history  indicated she had 
suffered some type of irregularity in neurologic status over the 
period of time mentioned. Her symptoms did not  lead her to seek 
medical  attention and, therefore, her  condition was unknown and 
subsequently not  one  that was  considered f o r   medical  discharge 
from  the  service.  Had  the  condition  been  reported  when  these 
events occurred, it is likely that she would have been diagnosed 
and  medically  boarded  f o r   separation for a seizure. The author 
states  one  cannot  speculate  on  the  eventuality  of  such  events 
happening in any individual unless presented evidence on which to 
draw a conclusion, and without applicant bringing her problem to 
medical  attention,  there  would  be  no  way  to  diagnose  such  a 
disorder. It is a moot  question, then, whether or not she had  a 
seizure  disorder  which  predicated  her  discharge  unless  her 
discharge  is  not  legally  binding  until  her  receipt  of  the 
notification, the  question which  legal  counsel  must  determine. 
The issue in question revolves around the legal determination of 
when her discharge was valid. If this date is after the date of 
her  generalized seizure on 2 0   June 1993  (which date would  have 
made  her  diagnosis  known  to  military  authority),  then  the 
author's recommendation would  be  to separate her medically with 
severance pay  under VASRD  Code  8910, Epilepsy, Grand Mal, with 
disability rating of 20%  (at least one major seizure in the last 
two  years,  or  at  least  two  minor  seizures  in  the  last  six 
months). 
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit K. 
The Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, also reviewed the 
case  and  indicates  applicant's  contention  that  the  discharge 
order was  not  effective  until  27 June  1993  should be  rejected 
because  she  had  sufficient  constructive  knowledge  of  her 
discharge to make it effective 11 June 1993. Because the statute 
is silent on when a discharge is effective, one must  look to AFR 
35-41,  Volume  111, paragraph  5-13B---the Air  Force  regulation 
governing  discharge  of  Reservists  in  1993. 
There  is  no 
indication  the  applicant  intentionally  avoided  receipt  of  the 
discharge  order  or  that  delivery  could  not  be  effected.  The 
question is whether she had actual or constructive notice of the 
discharge  on  or  before  11 June  1993. As  to  actual  knowledge, 

2 

95- 02296 

. 

c 

there is no evidence in the file showing when she received the 
hard  copy  of  the  discharge  order  other  than  the  applicant's 
assertion  that  occurred  on  27 June  1993. The  order  itself  is 
, so it 
dated 10 June 1993 and addressed to her at 
is safe to conclude she could not have rec 
before 
1993,  although  she  could  have  received  it,  even  in 
before  20  June  1993.  Constructive  knowledge, on  the 
other hand, existed  shortly after 23  April  1993, the date  she 
submitted her  response  to  the  disenrollment  investigation. The 
documents  she  signed  unequivocally  demonstrate  her  desire  to 
completely terminate her relationship with the Air Force. Indeed, 
according  to  the detachment commander's counseling record, the 
applicant expressly rejected the option of continuing in AFROTC 
but  changing her major  to biology. Furthermore, the  letter she 
submits from the former detachment commander does not corroborate 
her  current  assertion;  it  merely  confirms  the  detachment  was 
disappointed to see her leave and would have been pleased to have 
her continue, had that been her desire. Given this information, 
the applicant knew or reasonably should have known in late April 
1993 she would be disenrolled from AFROTC and discharged from the 
Air Force shortly thereafter. She misunderstands the difference 
between I'orders,  the violation of which is punishable under the 
UCMJ  and  "administrative  orders, I'  which  are  merely  formally 
published  records  of  various  administrative  actions. 
An 
administrative order can have an effective date prior to the date 
a copy of  it  is actually delivered to an individual to whom  it 
pertains.  The  author addresses applicant's assertion that  the 
debt is unfair. The Board cannot forgive a debt under the guise 
of  Vorrecting  a  record."  Nor  has  the  applicant  exhausted  her 
administrative remedies, a precondition  for Board  action.  The 
Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  has  the  discretion to  release  the 
applicant from her indebtedness, but  there is no indication the 
applicant has made  such a request. This is a case of a student 
hoping  and  honestly  trying,  but  ultimately  failing,  to  gain 
acceptance into a particular college after receiving two years of 
AFROTC  scholarship.  She  wants  to  retain  the  benefits  of 
scholarship (two years of free education) but wants the Air Force 
to bear  the  entire burden of  her  rejection by  the  school. The 
record indicates she knew the risk of rejection and the results 
that  could  flow  from  it.  Note  that  in  May  1992---prior to 
receiving her  second year of  AFROTC  scholarship benefits---she 
could have withdrawn from AFROTC with no obligation to pay  the 
first year's scholarship benefits.  In her 1991 AFROTC contract, 
she  understood  failure  to  complete  the  education  and  training 
requirements  of  the  contract  may  require  reimbursement  of 
scholarship monies or service on active duty, at the Air Force's 
election. She  argues  that  the Air  Force  erred  by  being  overly 
optimistic about her chances of acceptance  (Le., her counselor 
failed to persuade her to drop out at the end of the first year) 
and  by  not  forcing  the  school  to  guarantee  acceptance  of  all 
AFROTC  scholarship  students  at  the  university.  Neither  the 

3 

9 5 - 0 2 2 9 6  

. 

applicant  nor  the  Air  Force  is  Itat faultt1 for her  rejection. 
AFROTC  could  not  dictate  the  school's admissions  policies  any 
more  than it 'could control the applicant's grades.  AFROTC did 
.  There  is 
not  force  her  to  attend  the  University o€- 
nothing to suggest she could not have applied to-'transfer to a 
different nursing school after being rejected by the school. Her 
allegation that she is a victim of sexual harassment is without 
merit. She alleges that she is entitled to the requested relief 
even though her counselor did absolutely nothing improper toward 
her  and  she  still  does  not  know  what  he  did  to  warrant  an 
investigation.  Discharge due  to disenrollment  from AFROTC was 
appropriate.  There is no justification to change the basis of 
the discharge to medical reasons. The author recommends denial. 
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit L. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

Applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  contends  the 
situation is not  as black and white as the JAG makes  it to be. 
Her knowledge of the Air Force consisted of what was told to her 
by the officers running the detachment.  No one made  [her] read 
all the regulations; they told her what she needed to know to be 
a successful student at the university. She was not a specialist 
on military law. She was told she would never be asked to repay 
the money.  She had no constructive knowledge of this discharge. 
She was offered another program and with this offer believed all 
of  the other proceedings had been  stopped. The discharge was a 
total surprise. She thought she would undergo a physical if she 
was  to  be  discharged. She  doesn't understand why  she  is being 
held  solely  responsible  for something  that  is  clearly  not  her 
fault.  She  requests  that  the  details  of  the  proceedings 
surrounding  [her counselorts] disappearance  from the detachment 
be  brought  to  her  attention.  This  information  has  enormous 
bearing to her case. The Air Force was too busy covering up the 
situation to worry about one cadet. She has filed a request for 
an investigation into her case by the Secretary of the Air Force. 
She requests a personal interview with the Board. 
Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit N. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  After  a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and 
applicant's  submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  her 
disenrollment action and resultant separation should be  changed 
to  a  medical  discharge  or  that  recoupment  of  her  scholarship 
funds  should  cease.  Applicant's  contentions  are  duly  noted. 
However, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the 

4 

95- 0 2 2 9 6  

. 

*. 

Air  Force.  The  documentation presented  raises  the  possibility 
that  she  may  have  suffered  some  type  of  irregularity  in 
neurologic status beginning in March 1993.  However, because she 
reported no symptoms prior to 20 June 1993, the Air Force had no 
reason to suspect a neurological disorder prior to effecting the 
administrative  discharge  process.  Based  on  the  available 
evidence, we cannot speculate whether or not applicant would in 
fact have  been  medically  discharged  had  she made  her  symptoms 
known  to  the  Air  Force.  As  for  the  various  legal  issues  and 
allegations  of  sexual harassment  she  raises, we  believe  these 
contentions have been fully addressed by the Office of the Judge 
Advocate  General.  As  for  her  demand  that  the  Board  provide 
details regarding the lldisappearancell of her AFROTC counselor, we 
would remind the applicant that, as indicated in AFI 36-2603 and 
AFPAM 36-2607,  the Board does not contact witnesses in behalf of 
an applicant, nor  is it  an investigative body.  The burden of 
providing  sufficient  evidence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice rests with  the applicant.  In the  instant appeal, we 
agree with  the  recommendations of  the Air  Force  and  adopt  the 
rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the 
applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered 
either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent 
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 
to recommend granting the relief sought. 
2.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to 
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a 
personal  appearance, with  or without  legal  counsel, would  not 
have  materially  added  to  that  understanding.  Therefore,  the 
request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
The  applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 16 June  1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 
Mr. Gary Appleton, Member 

5 

95- 0 2 2 9 6  

, *

'

8 

.

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit  I. 
Exhibit  J. 
Exhibit K. 
Exhibit L. 
Exhibit M.  AFBCMR Letter, dated  10 Sep 97. 
Exhibit N.  Applicant's Letter, dated 4 Oct  97. 

Record of Proceedings, dated 27 Aug 96, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Letter, dated 27 Apr 97, w/atchs. 
AFBCMR Medical Consultant Letter, dated 13 Aug 97. 
HQ USAF/JAG Letter, dated 29 Aug 97, w/atch. 

Panel Chair 

6 

95-02296