RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01395
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded  to
an honorable discharge.

2.  She receive  service-related  disability  due  to  service-related
events resulting in physical and emotional problems.

3.  Her narrative reason for separation, Misconduct-Sexual Perversion-
Board Waiver, be removed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was a victim of her supervisor and the Air Force at the time.  She
further states that  she  has  been  receiving  counseling  for  Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for more than two years now.

Applicant’s complete statement and documentary evidence  submitted  in
support of her application are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 January 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  in
the grade of airman basic (E-1).  She received one performance  report
with an overall evaluation rating of 6, with several referral comments
and ratings from her indorsing official.  Prior to  the  events  under
review, applicant was promoted to the grade of  airman  (E-2)  with  a
date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 2 July 1979.

On 5 December 1979, the squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge action against the applicant under the provisions of AFM 39-
12, Chap 2, Sec B, para 2-15(b), “Sexual  Perversion.”   The  specific
reasons for the proposed action were due to applicant’s frequent  acts
of sexual perversion during the period May through September 1979.  On
5 December 1979,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  discharge
notification and that military legal counsel had been  made  available
to her.

On 6 December 1979, after consulting  with  counsel  and  having  been
advised of her rights, applicant submitted a conditional waiver of her
rights associated  with  an  administrative  discharge  board  hearing
contingent on her receipt of an honorable discharge.

On 7 December 1979, the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant
be given a general discharge and that her case be referred to a  board
of officers.

On 10 December 1979,  the  discharge  authority  rejected  applicant’s
conditional waiver and afforded  her  the  opportunity  to  submit  an
unconditional waiver or request her case be referred  to  a  board  of
officers.

On 17 December 1979, applicant waived her rights to an  administrative
discharge board and to submit written statements in  her  own  behalf.
On 17 December  1979,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  in  view  of  the
applicant’s unconditional waiver, found the case file  to  be  legally
sufficient to  support  a  general  discharge  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.  The discharge authority approved a general discharge,
without probation and rehabilitation.

On 18 December 1979, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of  AFM  39-12,  with  an  other  than  honorable  conditions   (OTHC)
discharge, with a narrative  reason  for  separation  as  “Misconduct-
Homosexual Acts – Board Waiver.”  She served 11 months, and 17 days on
active duty.

On 17 January 1980, a new DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or
Discharge  from  Active  Duty,  was  issued   correcting   applicant’s
discharge to general (under honorable conditions) with  the  narrative
reason for separations reflected as “Misconduct – Sexual Perversion  –
Board Waiver.”  A letter was provided to the  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (DVA) to update their data file.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 5 October 2001, that,  on  the  basis  of
data furnished, they are unable to locate an  arrest  record  (Exhibit
C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed the applicant’s  request  and  found  that  the
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the  discharge  regulation.   Additionally,  that  the
discharge was within the sound discretion of the discharge  authority.
They also noted that the applicant did not submit any new evidence  or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
processing.  Accordingly, they recommended her records remain the same
and her request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 1 September  2001,  applicant  provided  a  letter  indicating  the
information on file is not consistent  with  what  actually  happened.
She explains that she was coerced into taking a general  discharge  or
be court-martialed.  She further discusses difficulties  she  has  had
with the narrative reason for separation listed on her DD Form 214 and
requests to have it removed.  She also requests the Board to reinstate
her in the service so that she can prove how dedicated she was.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed the applicant’s entire case  file
and recommended denial.  He  noted  the  applicant’s  medical  records
reflect numerous visits for complaints of back pain and several mental
health visits brought on by the death of her father  and  subsequently
due to her relation difficulties with her boy friend.  At the time  of
discharge,  her   discharge   examination   specifically   stated   no
psychiatric diagnoses were present.

He states in the applicant’s present request she  indicates  that  she
was diagnosed by the DVA with PTSD and has been in counseling for  the
past two years.  She states PTSD is due to the death of her  son,  and
also to years of abuse in the relationship that began in the Air Force
and lasted for fourteen years.

He  furthers  states  that  there  was  no  evidence  of  medical   or
psychiatric conditions that would have warranted consideration in  the
disability system at that  time;  and,  that  the  applicant  did  not
provide any records from the DVA regarding her diagnosis of  PTSD.   A
diagnosis made in the post-service years does not  indicate  unfitness
for duty while in the military.  He states, in part, that while  there
is evidence in the medical records that she experienced  psychological
stress during her time in the Air Force, it cannot  be  determined  to
what extent, if any, this contributed to her subsequent development of
PTSD.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In the applicant’s response to the additional  Air  Force  evaluation,
she posed  several  questions  that  arose  from  her  review  of  the
evaluation.  She provided her present status with the DVA  clinic  and
restated her original request to the Board.  On 4 Mar 02, she provided
an additional statement with copies of her DVA medical records.

Applicant’s complete response to the additional Air  Force  evaluation
is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice warranting a change in the reason  for
separation.   A  majority  of  the  Board  found  no   evidence   that
responsible officials applied inappropriate standards in effecting the
applicant’s discharge, that pertinent regulations  were  violated,  or
that the applicant was not afforded all the rights to  which  entitled
at the time of her discharge.  Nevertheless, based on a review of  all
of the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge, a majority
of the Board believes there is some doubt that she would have received
the same narrative reason for separation if the current  policies  had
been in effect at the time of her separation.   In  view  of  this,  a
majority of the Board recommends the applicant’s records be  corrected
only to the extent of deleting the words “Sexual Perversion” from  her
narrative reason for separation.

4.  We considered the  applicant’s  request  for  an  upgrade  of  her
discharge to honorable and  her  request  to  receive  service-related
disability; however, we are not persuaded  by  the  evidence  provided
that further relief in the form of a fully honorable discharge  or  an
entitlement  to  service-related   disability   is   warranted.    The
appropriate Air Force offices have addressed these issues and  we  are
in agreement with their opinions and recommendations.   Therefore,  we
adopt their rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected  by  deleting  the  words  “Sexual
Perversion” from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her  DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued
21 December 1979.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application  AFBCMR
Docket Number 01-01395 in Executive Session  on  26 March 2002,  under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                 Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

By a  majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  change  the  applicant’s
narrative reason for separation.  Mr.  Sheuerman  voted  to  deny  the
change in the reason for discharge and did  not  desire  to  submit  a
minority report.  All members of the Board voted to  deny  applicant’s
requests  for  an  upgrade  of  her  discharge   and   service-related
disability.

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  FBI Report of Investigation.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Aug 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Aug 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 1 Sep 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 6 Feb 02.
     Exhibit H.  Applicant’s Response, dated 15 Feb 02, w/atchs.





                                   PHILIP SHEUERMAN
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 01-01395




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:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of  the  Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected  by  deleting  the  words
“Sexual Perversion” from Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation)
of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, issued 21 December 1979.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency