RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00862
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.00

      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Under Other Than Honorable Conditions  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable.

Her date of birth be corrected on her DD Form 214.   Examiner’s  Note:
Applicant’s date of birth was administratively corrected  by  the  Air
Force.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant indicates in a copy of  a  letter  that  she  wrote  to  her
Senator that while on duty at Shaw Air Force Base, SC as a  cook,  she
was brutally raped by two men who followed her into a walk-in  cooler.
She was told that if a report was made,  she  would  be  killed.   She
returned to her quarters, packed a rucksack and left the base.  Months
later at her place of  employment,  she  was  approached  by  two  men
identifying themselves as FBI agents and was given the option of going
with them or turning herself in at Grissom AFB the next morning.   She
chose to report to Grissom the next morning and was returned  to  Shaw
AFB.  At Shaw she was questioned and examined, but never  told  anyone
of the  rape.   Eventually  she  signed  documents  that  led  to  her
derogatory dismissal.  She would have signed anything  at  that  point
just to get away; such was her fear of  the  unknown.   She  has  kept
employed over the years using the only training she  received  in  the
Air Force, kitchen  work.   She  has  tried  to  get  other  types  of
employment, but was always rejected after she revealed her background.


The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 2 Nov  76.   She
was absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 Jun 77 to 15  Nov  77.   Facing
the possibility of court-martial charges, on 23 Nov 77  the  applicant
requested discharge for the good of the service through  her  Squadron
Commander.  The  Squadron  Commander  recommended  to  the  Group  and
Numbered Air Force commanders that her request be approved due to  the
applicant’s AWOL from 2 Jun 77 to 15 Nov 77, her failure to  become  a
team member, and a negative mental attitude toward service  life.   He
indicated that the applicant’s mother indicated that the applicant had
been acting strange and that she had been unable to talk to her  in  a
reasoning dialog for some time.  The applicant’s  commander  indicated
that she seemed more detached from daily details since her return from
AWOL and indicated that she would not return to work assigned  to  her
in the Chef’s  House.   The  Group  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the
applicant’s request for discharge legally sufficient  and  recommended
that the Group Commander recommend approval to the Numbered Air  Force
Commander.  In his review of the applicant’s case,  he  noted  that  a
clinical psychologist recommended the applicant’s immediate separation
because her severe personality disorder and value system rendered  her
unsuitable for retention or rehabilitation.  The  Numbered  Air  Force
Staff Judge  Advocate  also  found  the  applicant’s  request  legally
sufficient and recommended  to  the  Commander  that  he  approve  the
request.  The Numbered Air Force Commander  approved  the  applicant’s
discharge on 19 Dec 77 and directed that the applicant be furnished  a
discharge certificate under  other  than  honorable  conditions.   The
applicant was discharged on  21  Dec  77  with  an  under  other  than
honorable conditions discharge.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau  of  Investigation
(FBI), Clarksburg, WV, was unable to identify any arrest record on the
applicant.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s   request.    The
applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge  processing.   Additionally,
she provided no facts warranting an upgrade  of  her  discharge.   The
date of birth was  incorrect  on  her  discharge  form  and  has  been
corrected.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation in seven  separate
letters.  It appears that her initial intent was to provide a response
each day over the 30-day period she was given to respond.

In the first response, the applicant appears to indicate that she  was
the victim of sexual assault.  The complete response is at Exhibit E.

In her second response, the applicant  appears  to  request  that  the
Board  consider  whether  her  discharge  was  consistent   with   the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation,
given a statement by made by her commander to her mother  that  “there
are no good women in the military.”  The applicant indicates that  she
would  have  and  would  now  appreciate  elucidation  concerning  the
“Discharge Regulation.”  She indicates that she did not meet or  speak
with the commander during the process.   It does not appear consistent
to her to not have had, at the very least, a cursory  interview.   She
indicates that she  had  to  use  the  same  channels  as  those  that
committed the assault.  The Psychologist himself made an  offer  of  a
favorable report in exchange for oral sex.  The complete  response  is
at Exhibit F.

In her third letter,  the  applicant  indicates  that  while  detained
during the discharge processing, 15 Nov 77 through 21 Dec 77, she  was
not provided with food.  She is fairly certain  that  the  Air  Force,
which evidently does not view rape as injustice, would not consider  a
minor inconvenience, such as  having  nothing  to  eat  for  a  month,
untoward.  The complete response is at Exhibit G.

In the fourth  response,  she  indicates  that  an  Under  Other  Than
Honorable Conditions discharge was the only option  presented  to  her
for release.  None of the inquiries made by her during  the  discharge
procedure received response.  The complete response is at Exhibit H.

In her fifth letter, the applicant takes issue  with  several  of  the
statements contained in her discharge case.  She  indicates  that  she
had not spoken with any of the individuals that issued the statements.
 The applicant takes issue that the word of one man alone was accepted
as to her psychological condition.  In regards to the assessment  that
she  would  not  benefit  from  rehabilitative  efforts,   she   again
reiterates  that  the  Psychologist  offered  favor  for  favor.   She
questions how it was  sound  discretion  in  her  case  to  commit  an
individual displaying “emotional instability” to no option other  than
an under than honorable life.  The complete response is at Exhibit I.

In her sixth letter, the applicant discusses  the  circumstances  that
led to the filing of this application.  She indicates that she is  not
able to provide  numbers  and  documents  and  testimonials,  etc.  in
support of her appeal.  She questions  what  facts  would  warrant  an
upgrade of her discharge.  The Air Force provided  the  assessment  of
one psychologist, a male officer.  She has provided the assessment  of
one psychologist, a female civilian.  She responds that the Air  Force
provided the recommendations of personnel superior  to  her  with  the
support of her chain of command.  She obviously could not provide  any
recommending support since she was an airman.  She has had no one  but
herself to provide any facts  acceptable  for  review.   The  complete
response is at Exhibit J.

The applicant’s mother indicates in a letter that she is  disappointed
and disillusioned by the treatment her daughter has received from  the
Air Force.

While at her first permanent duty  station  (PDS),  her  daughter  was
raped and brutalized by a male Air Force  co-worker.   She  telephoned
home for advice and her mother was so shocked, she could not  see  how
her daughter could stay at the base.  She left the base and her mother
did not know  where  she  was  for  several  weeks.   Another  of  her
daughters telephoned to let her know that the applicant was  with  her
and was very depressed and not at all well.  This was unusual, as  the
applicant had always been a smiling and happy person.

In the fall of that year, two FBI agents came to her home looking  for
the applicant.  She advised them of the  applicant’s  whereabouts  and
she was allowed to report to an Air Force base in the area on her  own
recognizance.   She was then transferred  back  to  her  original  PDS
where she was incarcerated.

During this period, the applicant’s commander telephoned her  on  more
than one occasion urging her to counsel  the  applicant  to  sign  the
agreement being offered by the Air Force.  She was told that it was in
the applicant’s best interest as the “Air Force was  no  place  for  a
bright young lady like….”  Her husband, the applicant’s father  called
the commander  and  was  assured  that  he  would  take  care  of  the
applicant’s best interest.

The recent correspondence that the applicant has received from the Air
Force indicate that the statement uttered to she and  her  husband  by
the commander has been manipulated to  read  that  she  is  unfit  for
military  duty.   Unfit  for  military  duty  must  be  the   military
translation for refusal to be a military prostitute.

The applicant has every right to have her discharge  upgraded  as  she
has repeatedly requested.  The treatment she has been given by the Air
Force has been abominable from the very beginning.

The complete submission is at Exhibit K.

In the seventh  and  final  letter  submitted  by  the  applicant  she
requested a temporary withdrawal of her case.

The complete submission is at Exhibit L.

Based on a letter received from the  applicant  after  her  withdrawal
request, it was determined that the applicant’s case should proceed.

The complete submission is at Exhibit M.

_______________________________________________________________

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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After reviewing  the  applicant’s
complete submission, we find her claims of what happened to her  during
her Air Force service very disturbing.  Unfortunately, the evidence  of
record is not sufficient to validate her story.  There is no doubt that
should the applicant be able to provide adequate evidence  to  validate
her claims, she would be deserving of relief.  In that regard, we would
urge her to resubmit her application  if  she  can  provide  additional
evidence, such as corroboration from a credible source.  We would  also
urge her  to  consider  submitting  information  on  her  post  service
activities for consideration of clemency.  Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find  no  compelling  basis  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 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 Docket Number 02-00862 in
Executive Session on 7 August 2002, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
      Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Apr 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 12 Apr 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Apr 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Apr 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Apr 02.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Apr 02.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Apr 02.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Apr 02.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant’s Mother, dated
                 27 Apr 02.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 May 02.
     Exhibit M.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jul 02.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair