0 

JUN  2 5  

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

C C  

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-03344 

HEARING DEBIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

1.  Her dismissal from the Air Force be  changed to a general or 
honorable discharge. 
2.  The narrative reason for separation be  changed from  "court- 
martialtt to medical conditions. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

She was pregnant prior to discharge and was not given a physical 
examination  30  days  prior  to  discharge.  She  was  not  given 
medical or psychiatric treatment for her illnesses while she was 
on leave with depression and fibroid tumor, which resulted in an 
abdominal  pregnancy,  colostomy,  increased  depression  and  a 
hysterectomy. 

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant was appointed a first lieutenant  (Nurse Corps) in the 
Reserve  of  the Air  Force on  26  May  1993.  She was  ordered  to 
active duty on 9 June 1993  in the grade of captain for a period 
of 48 months. 
On  8  December  1993,  applicant  was  placed  in  pre-trial 
confinement, for drug abuse, pending court-martial for infraction 
of Article  112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice  (UCMJ). 
Per  General  Court-Martial  Order  No.  38,  dated  13  June  1994, 
applicant, at a court-martial convened at Keesler Air Force Base 
(AFB) ,  Mississippi, was  arraigned on 31 March  1994  at  Sheppard 
AFB, Texas, on the following offenses: 

CHARGE:  Article  112a.  Specification:  Did,  in  the  U. S., 
between on or about 28 June 1993 and 4 September 1993, wrongfully 
use cocaine.  Plea:  Not Guilty (Withdrawn after arraignment). 

ADDITIONAL, CHARGE I:  Article  112a.  Specification:  Did, in 
the U. S., between  on or about  2 December 1993  and  7 December 
1993, wrongfully use cocaine.  Plea:  Guilty.  Finding:  Guilty. 
11:  Article  89.  Specification:  Did  at 
on or about  10 September 1993, behave with 
dTsrespect toward her  superior commissioned officer, by  calling 
her, a  ''blonde bitch  with  a fat ass'' or words  to  that  effect. 
Plea:  Guilty.  Finding:  Guilty. 

E 111:  Article 133.  Specification 1:  Did, at 
on or about  7 December  1993,  spit  on the 
interior of an Air Force Office of Special Investigation Vehicle, 
while being  transported to  the  Security Police Squadron, which 
conduct  under  the  circumstances was  unbecoming  an  officer  and 
uilty.  Specification 2: 
on or about  8 December 
ve a f---,Il  G--Dammitt 
I'm tired of this s - - - , I l  
" I 
don't give a damn," ''1 don't need this G--damn Air Force," III1m 
going  to  p---  on  the  G--damn  floor,"  or words  to  that  effect 
while confined at t h e m  Security Police Squadron, which conduct 
under  the 
was  unbecoming  an  officer  and  a 
Finding:  Guilty.  Specification 3: 
gentlema 
,  on or about  10 September 1993, say 
Did, at 
to Major 
1 have to look over your shoulder and 
watch your back  for the rest of your life to make  sure no one 
ever stabs you in the back,Il ''1 wish no harm ever comes to you or 
your  family," or words  to  that  effect which  conduct under the 
circumstances was  unbecoming  an  officer  and  gentleman.  Plea: 
Guilty.  Finding:  Guilty. 

III1m tired of this M---F---  s - - - , I t  

ADDITIONAL CHARGE IV:  Article 123a.  Two specifications:  On 
or about 19 August and 12 November 1993, with intent to defraud 
and  for the procurement of  lawful currency, wrongfully make and 
utter  four  insufficient  funds  checks  totaling  $550.00  to 
Officers' Open Mess; and, On or about 19 August 1993, with intent 
to defraud and for the procurement of lawful currency, w 
and utter a check in the amount of $387.00  to the 
(Both specifications  and  Additional  Charge  IV 
arraignment) . 

Article  134.  Specification 1:  Did, at 
between  on  or  about  19  August  1993  and 
and utter to the Officers' Open Mess four 
00  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  lawful 
currency  and  did  thereafter  dishonorably  fail  to  maintain 
sufficient funds in the Sheppard Bank for pa 
in  full  upon  their  presentment  for  paymen 
Finding:  Guilty.  Specification 2:  Did, at 
on or about 19 August 1993, make and utter t 
check in the amount of  $387.00,  for the pur 
past  due  obligation  and  did  the 
maintain  sufficient  funds  in  the 

dishonorably  fail  to 
Bank  for payment  of 

. 

2 

such  check  in  full  upon  its  presentment  for  payment. 
Guilty.  Finding:  Guilty. 
Applicant was sentenced to Dismissal, confinement for 9 months, 
and  forfeiture  of  $1000.00  pay  per  month  for  9  months.  The 
sentence was adjudged on 31 March 1994.  The convening authority 
approved the sentence and, except for the dismissal, the sentence 
On  14  April  1994,  applicant  was  placed  in 
was  executed. 
confinement for infraction of Article 112a of the UCMJ. 

Plea : 

'Applicant received an in-processing medical examination in April 
1994  at  the  time of  her  confinement at  the U.  S. Disciplinary 
Barracks  (USDB) . 
Records  reflect  she  continued  to  receive 
medical treatment while in confinement.  A DA Form 4700, Medical 
Screening  of  Inmates,  dated  12  July  1994  reflects  an  out- 
processing medical examination.  A Referral for Civilian Medical 
Care  form,  dated  13  July  1994,  reflects  that  applicant  was 
leaving the USDB on 20 July 1994 and was referred to the VA for 
gynecology. 
On 19 July 1994, applicant completed the court-martial sentence, 
was  released  from  confinement  and  placed  on  appellate  review 
leave.  She was administratively assigned to Kirtland AFB, New 
Mexico pending subsequent appellate review completion. 

By  General  Court-Martial Order,  Number  26, dated  21  September 
1995, the sentence to dismissal from the service, confinement for 
nine months  and  forfeiture of  $1000.00  pay per month  for nine 
months, as promulgated in General Court-Martial Order Number 38, 
dated 13 June 1994, was finally affirmed.  On 21 September 1995, 
the Secretary of the Air Force approved the sentence and ordered 
the dismissal to be executed. 
Applicant  was  dismissed  by  Court-Martial,  DAF,  GCMO  #26  on 
19 October  1995  and  received  an  uncharacterized  character  of 
service. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Associate  Chief,  Military  Justice  Division,  AFLSA/JAJM, 
states  that  they  have  reviewed  the  military  justice  issues 
involved  and  find  no  errors  in  the  processing  of  applicant's 
court-martial, confinement  or  dismissal.  However,  since  her 
complaint arises from her dismissal from appellate leave status, 
they have investigated applicant's claim. 

Applicant's petition  suggests  that  Air  Force  authorities  were 
indifferent to her medical condition prior to her dismissal, but 
her medical records support a contrary finding.  She received an 
extraordinary amount of medical care throughout the course of her 
military service.  She received extensive in-and out-processing 
physicals at the USDB prior to her placement on appellate leave. 

3 

The Air Force does not  require that a physical examination take 
place 30  days prior to separation. They do require, however, that 
a medical  I'interviewll be accomplished on a DD Form 2697  prior to 
a member's separation.  The purpose of a pre-separation interview 
is  to  identify  medical  findings  requiring  attention  and  to 
document current medical status (not to determine eligibility for 
physical  separation or retirement).  Although this form was not 
accomplished in the applicant's case, the omission was harmless 
error for several reasons. 
First, the applicant's medical status was well-known to military 
authorities because she received extensive medical care prior to 
her release on appellate leave.  At  that time, she was referred 
to the Department of Veterans Affairs  (DVA) for further medical 
treatment.  She  continued to possess  a military  identification 
card and was entitled to medical  treatment at  military and DVA 
medical facilities while she was on appellate leave.  Therefore, 
if  she did not  obtain medical  treatment from those sources, it 
was by her own choice. 

Second, the applicant was not denied any disability entitlements 
because  members  sentenced  to  dismissal  are  not  eligible  for 
disability processing.  The same is true for members on appellate 
leave.  Therefore, the applicant lost no substantive entitlements 
by  the  omission  of  the  DD  Form  2697. 
Finally,  a  technical 
omission  in  pre-separation  processing  does  not  warrant  an 
upgraded  service  characterization. 
The  applicant's  military 
career  was  marred  by  substantial  misconduct  from  the  very 
beginning.  She served less than two months on active duty before 
she was found to have wrongfully used drugs.  Her court-martial 
conviction was based  on a range of misconduct, not  merely  drug 
abuse.  Her dismissal from the service was assessed by a panel of 
officers, approved by the convening authority and affirmed by the 
courts of appeal.  Nothing suggests a dismissal was excessive in 
this case.  They recommend the applicant's request be denied. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

The  Chief,  Medical  Consultant,  BCMR,  Medical  Advisor  SAF 
Personnel  Council,  states  that  review  of  available  medical 
records does not reveal any medical problems during applicant's 
period of active duty that would have warranted evaluation under 
provisions of AFI 3 6 - 3 2 1 2 .   Her contention that she was not given 
a  physical  examination  at  the  time  of  her  release  from  the 
service is of no significance, as no requirement existed for such 
examination.  She was given an out-processing medical review upon 
leaving confinement in July 1994 to begin appellate leave and had 
been treated during confinement with antidepressant medications. 
She  was  eligible  for  military  care  during  the  period  of  her 
appellate leave up to the point of her dismissal 15 months later, 
but  furnished no evidence that she took advantage of  such care. 
She does state that she had an abdominal pregnancy, hysterectomy 
and  colostomy performed  at  some point  after  her  dismissal  and 

. 

4 

* 

that  she  was  dismissed  with  the  pregnancy  undiagnosed.  The 
failure to  seek military  care  that  was  available prior  to  her 
dismissal voids any argument she might have about not  receiving 
proper medical care. 
Evidence of  record and medical  examinations prior to separation 
indicate  the  applicant  was  fit  and  medically  qualified  for 
continued military service or appropriate separation and did not 
have any physical or mental condition which would have warranted 
consideration under the provisions of AFI  36-4212.  Reasons for 
'discharge and  discharge proceedings are well  documented  in the 
records.  Action  and  disposition  in  this  case  are  proper  and 
reflect compliance with Air Force directives which implement the 
law. 

While  the  applicant  was  treated  for  some  ordinary  medical 
problems  while  on  active  duty,  as  will  occur  in  most  service 
members, none of  these problems singly, nor any combination of 
them, were of sufficient severity to justify a finding of unfit. 
There  is  no  evidence  to  suggest  that  the  applicant  deserved 
consideration  for  separation  through  the  Medical  Disability 
Evaluation System.  The Medical Consultant is of the opinion that 
no change in the records is warranted and the application should 
be denied. 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant states, in her response to the Air Force evaluations, 
that  the  facts  of  military  justice  action  omitted  a  very 
important fact about her wrongfully using cocaine on active duty. 
Flrst of all, she overdosed on cocaine and was hospitalized for 
one  month  after  her  initial use.  She  suffered  from  a  sudden 
onset of  depression when  she was  stationed at  Sheppard AFB  and 
consumed a  lethal dose of  cocaine and, as a result was put  in 
ICU.  She  asks  is  this  wrongful  use  or  overdose?  Applicant 
contends she asked her authorities to get her  some help or let 
her be  discharged because  she couldn't adjust  to the military. 
When she was discharged from the USDB,  she was mentally ill and 
couldn't make  rational decisions and  as a result, she lost her 
career in nursing and practically lost her life.  She contends no 
one told her she could seek outpatient treatment from the VA and 
no one made referrals for her. 

A copy of the applicant's response is attached at Exhibit F. 

5 

. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

' 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we are not persuaded that her dismissal from the Air 
Force should be  changed to a general or honorable discharge or, 
that  the  narrative reason  for separation be  changed to  reflect 
medical conditions.  Her contentions are duly noted; however, we 
do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently 
persuasive to override the rationale provided by  the Air  Force. 
We therefore 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.  Therefore, we find no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

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 13 May 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36- 
2603. 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 

6 

. 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Dec 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit  B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit  C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated  10 Mar  97. 
Exhibit  D.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated  13 Jun 97. 
Exhibit  E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jul 97. 
Exhibit  F.  Applicant's Letter, undated. 

Panel Chair 

7