RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01026
            INDEX CODE:  A68.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His bad conduct discharge(BCD) be upgraded to general.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His actions which resulted in his court-martial were the result of his
post-traumatic stress disorder.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of  a  DD Form
293, a statement from a Clinical Social Worker, and extracts from  his
medical records.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was discharged on 19 May 98 and furnished  a  BCD.   He  was
credited with 6 years and 8 days of total active duty service.  He had
238 days of lost time.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate  offices  of  the
Air Force.  Accordingly, there is no need to  recite  these  facts  in
this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  The Medical Consultant noted that applicant was a
first-term airman on temporary duty in Saudi Arabia from March to June
1996 and was “no more than about 200 yards”  from  the  Khobar  Towers
when they were bombed  by  terrorists  on  22  Jun  96.   He  returned
stateside on 27 Jun 96 and  shortly  thereafter,  while  visiting  his
girlfriend, got intimately involved with her 15-year old sister.  This
incident was  later  revealed  to  this  girl's  boyfriend,  and  then
reported to military officials leading to the  applicant’s  conviction
by general court-martial of having carnal knowledge with a child under
the age of 16 and other associated charges.  He served 10 months  and,
while awaiting appeal of his conviction, he began counseling  sessions
with a Licensed Clinical Social Worker at XXX XXXX, XXXX, in  Jan  98,
continuing these  sessions  until  Oct  of  that  year.   The  working
diagnosis was PTSD, which he now seeks to use  in  mitigation  of  his
actions to warrant a change of discharge.

The Medical  Consultant  noted  that  the  applicant  applied  to  the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for benefits in Jul 98,  and  was
referred for psychiatric evaluation on Aug 98 which  resulted  in  the
diagnosis of PTSD being rejected on grounds that he  did  not  fulfill
multiple criteria of this disorder.  This was the first evidence found
in  the  records  of  the  applicant   having   visited   a   licensed
psychiatrist, someone who is an authority for making diagnoses and who
succinctly pointed out the reasons for not considering the applicant's
problems as  relating  to  PTSD.   Instead,  this  provider  diagnosed
Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, Chronic.  The DVA  turned  down  the
applicant's request for benefits based on the BCD he received.

According to the Medical Consultant,  the  actions  committed  by  the
applicant that led to his general  court-martial  could  not,  by  any
consideration, be attributable to events that occurred  while  he  was
stationed in Saudi Arabia.  Although claiming  to  be  suffering  from
PTSD,  the  records  show  that  this  diagnosis  was   made   without
consideration of all criteria required by DSM-IV, and  his  reportedly
uncharacteristic actions led to this incorrect diagnosis, could not be
found to be mitigated by the Tower event or his mental state following
this disaster.  The applicant’s claim otherwise was not  supported  by
the evidence of record.  In the Medical Consultant’s view, the  events
leading to his BCD were well-documented and no  error  or  impropriety
was found in the records that would warrant a change of  discharge  as
the applicant seeks.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that PTSD is  not  an  excuse
for his actions.  He takes responsibility,  however,  the  near  death
experience has caused emotional pain and psychological discomfort.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to  the  Board’s  request,  the  Military  Justice  Division,
AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and recommended denial.

JAJM noted that on 18 Feb 97 and 19 Feb  97,  the  applicant,  then  a
senior airman, was tried by a general court-martial  composed  of  the
military judge sitting alone.  The facts  adduced  at  trial  revealed
that the applicant returned stateside on 27 Jun 96,  after  serving  a
four month temporary  duty  assignment  in  Saudi  Arabia.   Upon  his
return, he visited his girlfriend, staying at her mother’s  apartment.
The applicant and  his  girlfriend  had  experienced  an  intermittent
relationship since the birth of their son in 1992.  On 1 Jul  96,  the
applicant and his girlfriend’s 14-year old sister were  alone  in  the
mother’s apartment.  They engaged in kissing and fondling which led to
intercourse.  Four days after the incident, the applicant married  his
girlfriend.  In Sep 96, the  grandmother  of  the  sister’s  boyfriend
discovered and read certain letters she had written to  her  grandson,
which described their sexual activity and her  sexual  encounter  with
the  applicant.   The  grandmother  informed  the  mother,  who   then
confronted her.  The  girlfriend  was  told  about  the  incident  and
separated from the applicant, taking their son.

The applicant was charged with the following offenses:   rape  of  his
girlfriend's sister, in violation of  Article  120,  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ); and committing an indecent act upon a  female
under the age of 16, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, by kissing her
on the lips on 30 Jun 96, and  by  again  kissing  her  on  the  lips,
fondling her breasts, and penetrating her vagina with his finger on  1
Jul 96.  The applicant entered a plea of guilty to  the  two  indecent
act allegations, with the exception of the vaginal penetration.  As to
the rape allegation, he entered a plea of guilty to the lesser offense
of carnal knowledge.  The Government elected to try the  rape  charge,
as well as the penetration allegation, on its merits.   After  hearing
the testimony of victim and the applicant,  as  well  as  others,  the
military judge found the applicant guilty of carnal  knowledge  rather
than rape.  In addition, the military judge found the applicant guilty
of the two indecent act allegations  as  charged.   After  considering
matters presented by the prosecution and defense  on  sentencing,  the
military  judge  sentenced  the  applicant  to  a   BCD,   14   months
confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-
1.  The convening authority approved the  sentence  as  adjudged.   On
13 Jan 98, the Air  Force  Court  of  Criminal  Appeals  approved  the
findings and sentence.  On 29 Apr 98, the Court  of  Appeals  for  the
Armed Forces denied the applicant’s petition for review and, on 19 May
98, the BCD was ordered executed.

According to JAJM, the applicant’s court-martial was properly convened
and conducted,  and  had  jurisdiction  over  the  applicant  and  the
offense.  The applicant’s conviction and sentence were reviewed by the
Air Force Court of Military  Review,  and  were  found  correct.   The
applicant has been afforded all of the relief required by law and  the
interests of justice.  His actions were serious in  nature  given  the
young age of the victim and the sentence imposed accurately  reflected
the nature of those actions.

A complete copy of the JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  20
Nov 00 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  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.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed, and his contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and
the documentation presented in  support  of  his  appeal  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary responsibility (OPRs).  The evidence  of  record  indicates
that the applicant was convicted by general  court-martial  of  carnal
knowledge and committing two indecent acts and was given  a  BCD.   No
evidence has been presented to indicate his  service  characterization
was improper, or, that his actions which  resulted  in  the  BCD  were
attributable to PTSD.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we adopt the Air Force rationale and
conclude that no basis exists 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 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 10 Jan 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 10 Mar 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Apr 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, undated.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 21 Sep 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Nov 00.





                                   TEDDY L. HOUSTON
                                   Panel Chair