RECORD 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR 

OF PROCEEDINGS 
CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DEC 09 1998  - 

e 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01104 
COUNSEL : 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, DD 

1. 
Form 214, dated 17 February 1995, be corrected as follows: 

a.  Item  23: 

Type  of  Separation : 

Disenrollment I'  to Voluntary Honorable Discharge. 

Change  'I  Involuntary 

b.  Item 25:  Separation Authority:  Remove "AFI 36-2020 and 

OL-C MEMO, 17 Feb 95." 

c.  Item  28: 

Narrative  Reason  for  Separation: 

Change 

Involuntary Disenrollment  to Voluntary Honorable Discharge. 
2.  Remove  all  medical  references  in  her  records, in  lieu  of 
pertinent events. 
3.  She be qualified for commissioning and worldwide service. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
Her  discharge  was  a  result  of  sexual  harassment  incidents 
outlined  in the  attached  affidavit.  Discharge was  retaliatory 
based on inaccurate medical conclusions. 

In  support  of  her  request,  applicant  submi 
affidavit  pertaining  to  civil  action  in  t h e  
Court. 
Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Available  records reflect that  applicant  entered  the U. S. Air 
Force Academy  on 30 June 1994 as a Cadet  Fourth Class and was 
assigned to Cadet Squadron 15  ( C S - 1 5 ) .  

The Headquarters U. S. Air Force Academy Staff Judge Advocate, HQ 
USAFA/JA, states that during the period  2 November 1994 through 
30 November 1994, applicant received medical treatment/counseling 
for two incidents of  intentional overdosing on medication.  She  - 
was twice admitted to the USAFA hospital and following the second 
admission,  transferred  to  the  Fitzsimons  Army  Medical  Center 
Inpatient Psychiatric Ward.  Following evaluation/treatment from 
21  through  30  November  1994,  applicant  was  discharged  from 
Fitzsimons with  a  recommendation that  she  be  disenrolled  from 
USAFA at the end of the semester.  On 2 December 1994, applicant 
reported  to  the  USAFA  hospital  emergency  room  complaining  of 
depression and despondency.  She was admitted to the Psychiatry 
Service. 
On  8  December  1994,  a  Cadet  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (CMEB) 
convened and recommended that applicant be medically disenrolled 
from USAFA.  [The Medical Board Report indicated a diagnosis of: 
(1)  Axis  I  -  Adjustment  disorder  with  mixed  disturbance  of 
emotions and conduct.  (2)  Axis I1 -  Deferred.  ( 3 )   Axis 111 - 
None.  (4)  Axis IV -  Psychosocial/environmental and Occupational 
problems.  (5)  Axis V -  Global assessment of functioning]. 
Following  a  legal  review  of  the  proposed  disenrollment,  on 
26 January  1995,  the  USAFA  Superintendent  forwarded  a 
recommendation  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  (AFPC) 
recommending applicant be medically discharged from cadet status, 
as provided by AFI 36-2020, paragraph 7. 
On 17 February 1995, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the 
recommendation of the CMEB as concurred in by the Superintendent, 
Air Force Academy, to disenroll applicant and directed that she 
be honorably discharged. 

Applicant was honorably discharged on 17 February 1995, as an Air 
Force Cadet, under the provisions of AFI  36-2020 and OL-C Memo, 
17  February  1995  (Involuntary Disenrollment) . 
She  served  7 
months and 18 days of active military service. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ USAFA/JA, states that on 12 November 
1996,  applicant filed a lawsuit in the U. S. District Court f o r  
equitable  relief  and  damages  against  the  U.  S. Air  Force  and 
eight individually named cadets.  On 18 November 1996,  she also 
filed a  15 million dollar personal  injury  administrative claim 
with  the  U.  S.  Air  Force. 
Both  the  lawsuit  and  the 
administrative  claim  are  based,  in  essence,  on  the  incidents 
recited  in  applicant's  affidavit  attached  to  her  AFBCMR 
application. 

With regard to applicant's correction requests numbers 1 and  2, 
some errors on her DD Form 214 were discovered.  Items 2 3 7 2 5   and 

2 

28 should be corrected.  Additionally, Items 26 and 27, on the DD 
- 
Form 214, should also be corrected. 
Correction requests numbers 3  and 4, which refer to the removal  - 
of all medical references and qualification for commissioning and 
worldwide  duty, of  the AFBCMR  application and, the  allegations 
contained in her contentions, in essence, dispute the grounds for 
her medical disqualification and discharge.  It is the opinion of 
USAFA/JA  that  the  Cadet  Medical  Evaluation  Board  (CMEB) 
recommendation  for  applicant's medical  discharge  was  properly 
processed and, based upon the medical opinions provided, resulted 
in  an  appropriate  decision  by  the  Secretary  to  medically 
discharge  the  applicant.  However,  consultation  with  medical 
personnel  indicated  that  the  medical  documentation  concerning 
applicant's  care  was  inadequate  to  independently  confirm  the 
diagnosis 
disqualified. 
Accordingly,  the  Academy  is  willing  to  convene  a new  CMEB  to 
reevaluate  applicant's  past  and  present  fitness  for  military 
service in necessary to determine the correctness of her military 
records. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 

medically 

that 

applicant 

was 

Based on the USAFA/JA's willingness to recommend that a new CMEB 
be  convened, the Executive Director, AFBCMR, forwarded the case 
to HQ USAF/JAG requesting comments concerning the practicality of 
the applicant being evaluated by a CMEB to determine her fitness 
for military service at this late date. 
A copy of the AFBCMR Memorandum is attached at Exhibit D. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief, General Law Division, AF/JAG, states that the USAFA/JA 
advisory indicates that the processing of applicant's separation 
was  in accordance with proper procedures.  There is nothing  in 
the  file  to  indicate  otherwise.  Nevertheless,  review  of  her 
separation paperwork disclosed errors in certain entries on her 
DD Form  214 that  should be  corrected to accurately reflect the 
reason  for  her  separation.  The  changes  recommended  by  the 
USAFA/JA  advisory  to  the  DD  Form  214  are  consistent with  t h e  
position that the medical diagnosis at the time was accurate and 
properly formed the basis for the separation. 
with regard to reconvening a CMEB, over three years have passed 
since that evaluation and the passage of time makes it unlikely, 
in the opinion of AF/JAG, that a CMEB can accurately and reliably 
determine  whether  or  not  the  1995  diagnosis  of  a personality 
disorder was correct. 

3 

Given  the  inadequacy  of  the  medical  documentation  underlying 
applicant's separation  and  the  improbability of  being  able  to 
currently and accurately diagnose applicant's mental condition as 
it  existed  in  1995,  AF/JAG  believes  that  it  would  not  be 
inappropriate  for the  AFBCMR  to  favorably consider applicant's 
request. 
A  complete copy of the AFBCMR  Memorandum is attached at Exhibit 
E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE  EVALUATION: 
Copies of the Air Force evaluations and AFBCMR  Memorandum, were 
forwarded to the applicant on 27 May 1998 for review and response 
within 30 days.  A s   of this date, no response has been received 
by this office. 

- 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3 .   We note that the HQ USAFA/JA  advisory opinion indicates that 
the under1,ying medical  documentation was  inadequate for medical 
authorities  now  to  independently  confirm  the  diagnosis  of  a 
personality  disorder that  was  made  in early  1995; and  that  to 
correct  this  deficiency, the  USAFA  has  offered  t o   reconvene  a 
cadet  medical  evaluation  board  (CMEB)  to  determine  the 
correctness of  the medical  diagnosis of  a personality disorder 
that  formed  the  basis  for  applicant's  separation.  However , 
because of  the elapse of  time, HQ USAF/JAG believes that  it  is 
highly unlikely that such a board could accurately and reliably 
determine  whether  or  not  the  1995  diagnosis  of  a  personality 
disorder  was  correct.  Since  there  is  no  way  of  accurately 
determining the applicant's mental condition in 1995 at this late 
date, HQ USAF/JAG  believes that it would not be  inappropriate to 
favorably consider the applicant I  s requests.  On the other hand, 
the indisputable fact remains that the applicant was hospitalized 
because of two incidents of intentional overdosing on medication 
and  was  admitted  to  the  Psychiatry  Service  because  of  her 
complaint of  depression and despondency.  Absent  more  clear-cut 
evidence  in  this  regard, we  do  not  believe  it  appropriate  to 
eradicate factual documentation from a military record which may 
be  of  vital  importance in  the  future.  Therefore, we  can  not 
recommend the removal of her medical records nor recommend she  be 
qualified for commissioning and world-wide service. 

4 

4.  We believe sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice 
warranting some form of relief.  After  thoroughly reviewing the 
evidence of record, we are persuaded that applicant's involuntary  - 
disenrollment  from  the United States Air  Force Academy  (USAFA) 
should be changed to a voluntary resignation based upon a change 
of career goals and that all references to her medical condition 
be removed from her separation documents.  As we have previously 
noted,  the  existing  medical  documentation  is  insufficient  to 
reliably --indicate  whether  the  1995  diagnosis  was  correct. 
Therefore we recommend that the benefit of the doubt be resolved 
in her favor by correcting her separation documents to the extent 
that removes all references to her disenrollment due to physical 
disqualification.  With respect to the DD Form 785, the Board is 
persuaded that it should be corrected to reflect that applicant 
resigned due  to  a change of  career goals.  A  majority  of  the 
Board  is further persuaded that no recommendation be  made  with 
regard to future acceptance into officer training. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be  corrected by amending the Certificate 
of  Release  or  Discharge  From  Active  Duty, DD  Form  214, dated 
17 February 1995, as follows: 

a.  Item  23.,  "Type  of  Separationf1 be  changed  to  read: 

"Discharge. 

b.  Item  25.,  Y3eparation  Authority!' be  changed  to  read: 

"AFI 36-2020, Section B." 

c.  Item 2 6 . ,   IISeparation Code" be changed to read:  VFF.Ii 
d.  Item 27. , "Reentry Codell be changed to read:  Ir4L.II 
e.  Item 28., "Narrative Reason for.SeparationIl be changed to 

read:  Vecretarial Authority. 
It is further recommended that the Record of Disenrollment From 
Officer Candidate -  Type Training, DD Form 785,  dated 17 February 
1995,  be amended as follows: 

a.  Section  111 

Reasons  and  Circumstances  for 
Disenrollment, reflect  that  she  resigned  "due  to  a  change  in 
career goalsf1 ,  rather than being  administratively separated due 
to Itphysical disqualification IAW AFR 160-43, para 4-26,a, b, and 
e. 

- 

b.  Section IV  -  Evaluation  to be  Considered in  the  Future 
for  Determining  Acceptability  for  Other  Officer  Training,  be 

1 

5 

changed by  deleting the  I1checkii in block  "5, 
RECOMMENDED; 

and placing a check in block  Il6,  If  "Other Remarks. 

IIDEFINIETELY NOT 

c.  In  the  I1REMARKSir Section,  delete  the  first  sentence 
was discharged from her cadet appointment due to 
ification.lI  After the second sentence, "Cadet did 
'I NO 

If Cadet 
medica' 
not  incur  an  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment;  ADD: 
RECOMMENDATION. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 4 August  1998,  under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3  : 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 

By  a majority  vote, the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records by 
amending the DD Form  214 and DD Form  785  as recommended.  Mr. 
Wheeler voted to deny the Board panel's recommendation to change 
the DD Form 785,  Section IV, IIEvaluation to be Considered in the 
Future for Determining Acceptability for Other Officer Trainingii 
and has submitted a minority report which is attached at Exhibit 
G.  The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 

A. 
B. 
C .  
D. 
E. 
F. 
G. 

DD Form 149,  dated 26  Mar 97,  w/atchs. 
Applicant's Available Master Personnel 
Letter, HQ USAFA/JA, dated 4  May 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26  May 98. 
Letter, AF/JAG, dated 2 7   May 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 7   May 98. 
Minority Report. 

Records. 

MkRTHA M A U S f  
Panel Chair 

6 

DEPARTMENT OF*THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

DEC 0’9 1998 

Ofice of the Assistant Secretary 
AF’BCMR 97-0 1 104 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for 

Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States 
Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: 

cords of the Department of the Air Force relating t- 
orrected by amending the Certificate of Release or Discharge 
4, dated 17 February 1995, as follows: 

a.  Item 23., “Type of Separation” be changed to read:  “Discharge.” 
b.  Item 25, “Separation Authority” be changed to read:  “AFI 36-2020, 

c.  Item 26., “Separation Code” be changed to read:  “JFF.” 
d.  Item 27., “Reentry Code” be changed to read:  “4L.” 
e.  Item 28., “Narrative Reason for Separation” be changed to read:  “Secretarial 

Section B.” 

-

-

 

Authority.” 

It is further directed that the Record of Disenrollment From Officer Candidate - Type 

Training, DD Form 785, dated 17 February 1995, be amended as follows: 

a.  Section I11 - Reasons and Circumstances for Disenrollment, reflect that she 
resigned “due to a change of career goals,” rather than being administratively separated due to 
“physical disqualification IAW AFR 160-43, para 4-26, a, b, and e.” 

b.  Section IV - Evaluation to be Considered in the Future for Determining 
Acceptability for Other Officer Training, be changed by deleting the “check” in block “5” 
“DEFINITELY NOT RECOMMENDED;” and placing a check in block “6,” “Other Remarks.” 

c.  In  the  ‘;REMARKS”  Section, delete  the  first  sentence 

WaS 
discharged  from  her  cadet  appointment  due  to  medical  disqualification.”  After  the  second 
“NO 
sentence,  “Cadet  did  not  incur  an  Active  Duty  Service  Commitment;”  ADD: 
RECOMMEND ATION. ” 

L/  Air Force Review Boards Agency