RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02097
                                       INDEX CODE:  110.03
   APPLICANT                 COUNSEL:  AMERICAN LEGION

                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment (RE) Code of “2Q” be changed to  allow  her  to  return  to
military service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During basic  training  her  career  was  tainted  due  to  acts  of  sexual
harassment and physical violence that were perpetrated upon her  through  no
fault of her own.

In support of her application, she submits  a  personal  statement,  medical
assessment  reports,  copy  of  DD  Form  293,  Application  for  Review  of
Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United  States,  letters
to her Senator and Congresswoman, copies of Physical Evaluation Board  (PEB)
and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) findings, and  other  documents  relating
to her service and the issues cited in  her  contentions.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  17  January  2001  and,
while serving in the grade of airman basic, was discharged on 28 March  2001
with an Entry Level Separation because of a disability which  existed  prior
to service.  She was credited with 1 month  and  12  days  of  total  active
federal military service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters  prepared  by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, and E.

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant was  in  her  5th  week  of
basic training when her behavior was noted to take a sudden change  and  she
became withdrawn and isolated from her fellow recruits.   She  was  admitted
to the hospital on February 19, 2001, 1 month after  entering  active  duty,
and remained there until  her  discharge  on  March  28th,  being  found  to
exhibit  symptoms  compatible  with  the  diagnosis  for   which   she   was
discharged.  She contends  that  her  behavior  was  prompted  by  a  sexual
incident perpetrated by fellow recruits "at 2400  hours"  on  February  19th
whereby she  was  rudely  awakened  and  taken  to  "Command  Quarters"  and
harassed  and  demeaned  by  several  females  and   training   instructors.
According to her, when she began screaming, an ambulance was called and  she
was taken to the hospital while continuing to be harassed and beaten on  her
breasts by the medical attendant.  The medical report  details  an  entirely
different account of events, noting her  gradual  withdrawal  over  some  10
days and appearing "dazed" and unresponsive while acting as dorm guard  when
her Technical Instructor tried to enter on the day she was admitted  to  the
hospital.  This  was  followed  by  the  applicant  reportedly  hitting  her
flightmates and yelling, "Let me go. It wasn't my fault."  Upon  arrival  at
the emergency room she remained uncooperative and was found  delusional  and
paranoid  in  her  thinking.   Her  ensuing  hospitalization  confirmed  the
impression of an acute psychotic event and various medications were used  to
provide relief from her initial  GAF  of  35  to  80  at  the  time  of  her
discharge some 5  1/2  weeks  later.   Upon  her  return  to  her  home  she
initiated a formal complaint which was investigated and  concluded  that  no
sexual harassment such as she believes  happened  actually  occurred.  These
alleged events were not  disclosed  at  the  time  of  hospitalization,  the
applicant confiding in no one about any such occurrence.

The  Medical  Consultant  indicates  there  is  no  evidence  found  in  the
personnel or medical records that substantiates the allegation posed by  the
applicant, nor does she provide any corroborating evidence  to  support  her
claim.   Indeed,  the  investigation  that  was  completed  based   on   her
allegation failed to uncover any evidence  that  this  event  had  occurred.
Rather, it would appear that the distortion of  reality  occasioned  by  the
deterioration of her mental status led to  an  erroneous  conclusion  as  to
events   surrounding   her   hospitalization.    Without   some   means   of
substantiating her claim, the Medical Consultant is not inclined to  support
favorable consideration of  her  request.   Records  indicate  she  received
further counseling through local mental  health  services  upon  her  return
home, but lack details of such intervention over the  past  3  months.   Her
current status is, therefore, unknown, although an appeal to the  Department
of Veterans Affairs for disability consideration  was  noted  to  have  been
denied in their  decision  dated  May  23,  2001.   Therefore,  the  Medical
Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the record is  warranted  and
the application should be denied (Exhibit C).

The Separations Branch indicates that on 23 March 2001, the  Office  of  the
Secretary of the Air Force determine that the member  was  physically  unfit
for continued military service due to a physical  disability  which  existed
prior to her military service and directed a  discharge  without  disability
benefits.  Based on the documentation  in  the  file,  DPPRSP  believes  the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of  the  discharge  regulation  and  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound
discretion of  the  discharge  authority.   DPPRSP  states  the  only  error
identified within the member’s discharge is the date she entered  on  active
service on the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active
Duty and this error has been corrected using the DD Form 215, Correction  to
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active  Duty  (Exhibit
D).

The Director of Personnel Programs Management  conducted  a  review  of  the
applicant’s case file and indicated that the Reenlistment  Eligibility  (RE)
code  of  2Q,  “Personnel  medically  retired  or  discharged”  is   correct
(Exhibit E)
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant and counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations  and  responded
separately. The applicant rebutted the advisories  and  iterated  previously
submitted statements.  Counsel provided copies  of  a  letter  sent  to  the
President Bush and one submitted by the applicant’s mother.   The  applicant
and counsel’s complete rebuttals, with attachments, are at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

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  warranting  changes  to   the
applicant’s reenlistment code.  We took notice of the  applicant's  complete
submission in judging the merits of the case to include her assertions  that
her career was tainted  due  to  acts  of  sexual  harassment  and  physical
violence;  however,  we  were  unable  to  conclude  from  the  records  any
statements that corroborate her allegations.  Therefore, we agree  with  the
opinions  and  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force   offices   of   primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice, and  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  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 issue  involved.   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 8 January 2002 and 17 January 2002, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

            Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
            Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
            Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 01, with attachments.
     Exhibit  B.   Applicant's   Master   Personnel   Records   and   Sexual
     Harassment Investigation (Withdrawn).
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Sep 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRSP, dated 4 Oct 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 31 Oct 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Nov 01.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Response, dated 12 Dec 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Dr, Eugene Taylor, dated 4 Jan 02.





                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair